Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Agency Employee.

An Agency Recruitment Company.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00019425-001

25/05/2018

The Complainant says that there was a hidden clause in his contract of employment that prevented him from continuing his employment with the client company at which he had been placed as an agency worker for forklift driving and general operative duties.

He also complains that he was not given the terms of the Respondent’s policy on expenses.

The Complainant says that he commenced work with the Respondent on the 23rd January 2018, as an agency worker, and that the employment ended on the 20th April 2018.

The Complainant says that there was a hidden clause in his contract of employment that he wanted to expose, insofar as he says it meant that the Respondent prevented him from working.

He says that when the client of the of the Respondent – where the Complainant was placed – decided not to use the Respondent’s services further, they advised the Complainant that they could not employ him directly, as this would require them, as they had agreed, to pay commission to the Respondent for a period of 6 months. They were not prepared to do this.

He said he was not aware of such an agreement and was now prevented from working with the client because of it.

The Complainant also says that he was not given a copy of the Respondent’s expenses policy. He said at hearing that he expected to be paid travelling expenses from his Dublin city accommodation to his workplace in Tallaght.

The Respondent said:

(a)    They had issued the Complainant with a contract covering his Terms of Employment. They had difficulty in understanding the Complainant’s complaints and were no more informed following WRC mediation on the matter. They say that they have complied in every way with the terms of their agreement with the Complainant, as contained in the Contract of Employment. They say that the Complainant signed the contract in acceptance of the terms and conditions agreed, on the 24th January 2018.

(b)    They say that the Respondent was placed as a forklift truck driver/general operative at a client company.

(c)     They say that they had a commercial contract with the client company for the supply of labour to the client. They say that in order to protect their commercial interests the contract with the client prescribed that if the client decided to employ any of the people- placed with the client on an agency basis – on a direct basis, that the Respondent would be compensated for this, for a period of time by the client. They say that this is a normal commercial contract in these circumstances.

(d)    They say that this was not a barrier to the Complainant securing work with the client and that had the client contacted them on this plan that they could have reached an agreement. They say that the issue was not notified to them until they were contacted by the WRC.

In relation to the complaint about the issue of expenses policy and the Complainant’s claim for payment of travelling expenses from his home to his workplace, the Respondent says that the place of work is clearly stated in the contract signed by the Complainant.

I find that the Terms and Conditions contained in the Contract of Employment and which the Complainant has signed, in acceptance of the terms and conditions, were communicated to the Complainant in accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Terms of Employment Act, 1994.

The Provisions that the Complainant complains about are not included in this contract, but are contained in a standard commercial contract, which the Complainant is not privy to, nor is there a requirement that he should.

I find that the complaint raised, by the Complainant is not valid insofar as the Contract of employment contains a clause on the provision of the expenses and when and how such claims can be taken to the Respondent. I find that the specific claim raised at the hearing was not valid given that the agreed contract specified the place of work.

I find that the claims of the Complainant under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, fail.