ADJ-00017697

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A General Assistant

A Staffing Agency

Representatives

GerardKennedySIPTU

 A Director

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00022850-001

25/10/2018

The Complainant is seeking to be restored to a temporary post he previously held and compensation for loss of the post.  Due to a disagreement concerning employment details the parties were given additional time after the Hearing to make further submissions.

The Complainant was engaged in May 2012 to work in a Training Center through a cleaning company, Center X. Initially for three months and after that he was regularly used to provide casual cover in addition to ongoing cleaning duties.

In July 2015 the Complainant was interviewed by the Respondent who were taking over the management of Center X. He commenced employment in this role in August 2015 on a 19.5 hours per week contract.  In August 2016 he took on the additional role of Caretaker in Center X for 12 hours per week. He continues in this role.

In February 2018 the Complainant was advised that his 19.5 hours contract was not being renewed and sought a meeting with the Respondent to discuss his loss of income and the impact of the hour’s loss.  The Respondent did not engage on the issues.

In August 2018 the Complainant received a fixed term contract in relation to his post. It purported to be one of a specified purpose and fixed term in nature with a start date of August 27^th 2018. It also sought to deny the Complainant Union representation. Due to the lack of contractual terms provided to the Complainant and any reasons for the discontinuation of his original post we are seeking re instatement and compensation.

The Complainant was engaged to replace a person on sick leave. In late 2017 the person returned from sick leave. The post was the other persons employment and the Complainant was only a temporary replacement. The Complainat understood this. Another post came up and the Respondent offered it to the Complainant with 30 hours per week. This was a reasonable offer and close to where the Complainant lived. He was offered this before the loss of the 19.5 hours took effect. The Complainant said he would have to discuss it at home and after two weeks he declined to take up the offer.

In November 2017 the Complainant declined the offer of 30 hours per week. He then took up employment in Center X in February 2018 with another employer when his contract with the Respondent finished. He contacted the Respondent in April 2018 saying the new job was not working out and sought additional hours with the Respondent. The Respondent disputes the Complainants start date, hours of work and rate of pay in his claim form.  The Complainant never raised this issue as a grievance with the Respondent. The Respondent attempted to engage with the Complainant once it received the WRC claim form, but the Complainant would not engage and would only shrug his shoulders. The Complainant was told in November2017 that his temporary employment would cease in February 2018 by emails between the Respondent and the Complainant and he had no issue at the time of the emails, and they were all very cordial. The Respondent refutes the claim in its entirely and feels it has no case to answer.

The Complainant is seeking to be reinstated to a post held legitimately by another person and which he has no legal or other entitlement to hold.  He held the temporary position with the full understanding that it was to fill a temporary vacancy while someone else was out sick. He was offered suitable alternative employment by the Respondent before his contract ceased. He declined to take it up. He took up alternative employment with another employer in Centre X but that did not work out for him, for whatever reason and sought to come back to work with the Respondent.  He did not lodge a grievance with the Respondent while working with them. He appears to have not engaged with the Respondent when they tried to resolve the issue. Following consideration of the submissions and facts of the case, I have concluded that the Complainant has no grounds whatsoever for claiming reinstatement to a post held legally by another person nor should he be compensated for loss of his temporary post as he was offered reasonable alternative employment with the Respondent which he choose to not accept. For these reasons, I see no grounds to recommend anything in favour of the Complainant claims.

Pay dispute