ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Technical Operator | A Recruitment Company |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Company Managers |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00029749-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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).
Post Hearing Correspondence
At the Oral Hearing on the 14th October the Respondent Managing Director requested some additional time to submit further correspondence as he was, at the date of the Hearing, only coming late to the issues involved. The Complainant agreed and an exchange of correspondence followed in late November and early December 2019.
Background:
The issues in contention concern the alleged Unfair Dismissal of an Operator by a Recruitment Agency. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant is a worker of considerable experience - most of it on the site of a Major Multinational employer in Kildare. In February 2019 she accepted a placement for a temporary role with a Contractor (Contractor A) on the site. A week of induction training was arranged. At the end of the training week she was informed that her placement was not going ahead. No proper details were ever provided to her regarding why she was not being proceeded with and the Respondent left her in the complete dark as to the reasons. The work on the site was very familiar to her and the working hours /shifts were in keeping with previous employment there. The ending of the Placement was unfair and outside of all her employment rights.
|
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent made three main points. The Complainant has never been dismissed by the Respondent – she remains on their books and they have actively sought to find job placements for her. The placement in February 2019 was ended by the On-Site prospective employer and under their terms of business the Agency -the Respondent have no choice in the matter when a Customer (Contractor A) informs them that a placement is ending. While the exact circumstances are somewhat clouded it appears that the issue was one of a perceived inflexibility on the Complainant’s part regarding the Shift requirements of the Multi National site. The question of Hours/Shits had come up during the Induction week. It was perceived that the Complainant had an issue with the shift Patterns likely to arise and accordingly Contractor A decided not to place the Complainant. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
Considerable Oral and Written evidence was given in this case. It was clear to me that the Decision Maker was the Main Contractor (Contractor A) on the Site. The issue of shifts and hours was disputed vigorously by the Complainant. She had already worked on the site for many years and never had a problem. This was contested by the Respondent with reports from previous employers, albeit probably hearsay evidence, regarding the Complainant and shift patterns. In conclusion I came to the following views The main Decision maker was Contractor A on the site. They were not represented at the Hearing nor were they listed as required Parties on any claim papers from the Complainant. The Complainant remains an employee of the Respondent Agency. The Respondent Agency are “decision takers” as dictated by the likes of Contractor A. They are not expected to act as advocates for the Complainant but would be reasonably expected, in a common business sense, to at least find out some reasons why a particular candidate is not being proceeded with. In this case the Candidate was of many years’ experience on the Multi National site. Common business courtesy might have expected the Respondent to, at the very least, make direct inquiries and see how any issues that may have arisen for such an experienced employee, such as the Shift patterns, might be clarified. In this context the Complainant pointed out that she probably knew more about the end user Multinational requirements and regulations regarding shift patterns that either the Respondent or Contractor A. I suspected that she may have been somewhat too assertive in this regard during the Induction course. The ending of the Placement was sudden and left the Complainant at a loss for a reason. It was not helpful that there was little communication from the Respondent with the Complainant on the exact reasoning for the sudden ending of the Placement Accordingly, I recommend that the Respondent pay an award of €100 Euro to the Complainant in redress of their Communication failures regarding the very sudden ending of the Placement by Contractor A.
|
4: Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Summary Recommendation Please refer to Section three above for reasoning. |
CA-00029749-001 | It is Recommended that a sum of €100 be paid as compensation to the Complainant for Communication lapses by the Respondent Agency. |
Dated: 13th December 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
|