ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013531
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Warehouse Assistant | A Logistics Company (2) |
Representatives | SIPTU | Ken Stafford Management Consultancy Services |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00018120-001 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018120-002 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018120-004 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018120-005 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018120-006 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018120-008 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018120-010 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00018120-012 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00018120-013 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00018120-014 | 23/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The background to this case lies in the transfer of the complainant’s employment from her original employer by means of a Transfer of Undertaking. There is a preliminary issue as to whether the respondent has been correctly identified. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant’s case is based on correspondence of which she had sight and which she took to apply to her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The letter on which the complainant bases her complaint was not sent to, and did not apply to her. The initial transfer took place on October 28th, 2015 to company ‘B’, and a further transfer took place to company ‘C’ in October/November 2016. It is quite clear that the respondent has never been a link in the chain of changes that gives rise to other complaints by the complainant. Her P60s for 2016 and 2017 were issued by company ‘C’, as referred to above. This respondent was never her employer and is not a valid respondent to the current complaints. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The basis on which this complaint has been made is without any foundation. The complainant became aware of the contents of a letter which had not been addressed to her and did not apply to her. And yet she saw fit to base a complaint to the WRC on such a feeble basis. It is entirely misconceived and without merit. The current respondent is not and never has been her employer. There has been a considerable allocation of resources to this and a number of directly related cases as a result of duplication of complaints, poor identification of respondents and general inadequacy in preparing complaints properly. Given that the complainant was represented by a large trade union with considerable employment law and advocacy assets it is regrettable that more care was not exercised to avoid this unnecessary waste of the resources of the Commission. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons set out above I do not uphold complaints CA-00018120-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12 and they are all dismissed. |
Dated: November 7th 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Wrong Respondent. |