ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00018294

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  05/02/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) 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 complaint(s)/dispute(s).

This case ADJ 18294 is very closely linked to ADJ 18289 – the Respondent Employer being the same and the issues very similar.

Opening Issue / The identity of the Correct Respondent.

The Respondent (For convenience Respondent A) in this case, a large Construction Company, maintained that the Complainant was unknown to them and had never been an employee of their Firm.

They maintained that as far as they could ascertain the Complainant had been, possibly, an employee of another smaller Company – (For convenience Respondent B).

This matter was hotly contested by the Complainant’s Union Representative. Considerable allegations and largely hearsay evidence were presented regarding the identity and parent Employer of a Site Manager who it was alleged had directly controlled the Complainants. Any direct employment link to this individual was resolutely denied by Respondent A.

Much was made by the Complainants, in direct oral evidence, of a reported incident in the Summer of 2018 where colleagues of the Complainants were effectively “Bailed Out” by Respondent A when Respondent B was delayed in his home Country. The Complainants, in these cases, had missed out on this payment as they had been on Holidays abroad themselves at her relevant time.

Following the Hearing on the 5^th February correspondence was exchanged between the Parties and the Adjudicator on the employment status issues of the Complainants.

However, by letter (e-mail) of the 9^th April 2019 Respondent B acknowledged that the Operatives concerned had been his employees and had never been employees of Respondent A.

This correspondence was copied on the 26^th April 2019 to the Adjudicator by the Legal representatives of Respondent A.

Accordingly, in the light of this correspondence, it has to be accepted that Respondent A – the alleged employer in this case is not the correct Respondent.

Consequentially the case /complaints above cannot proceed and must be dismissed as Not Well Founded.

Background:

1:        Summary of Complainant’s Case:

2:        Summary of Respondent’s Case:

3:        Findings and Conclusions:

4:        Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.

Dated:   19^th August 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Michael McEntee