ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023745
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Cash collector | Finance and Insurance service provider |
Representatives | Self-represented |
Complaint:
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant has worked with the respondent since 5/11/2018 as a cash collector. His complaint is that the respondent penalised him for performing functions protected by the European Communities (European Cooperate Society) (Employee Involvement) Regulations 2007.The act of penalisation was placing the complaint on a performance improvement programme. He works 42.5 hours a week for which he is paid 2666 per month. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 20/8/2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that the respondent penalised him by placing him on a performance improvement plan on 20 August 2019. He states there is no basis for this. He attempted to uncover the reasons for it but has received no explanation from the respondent. He states that he has performed very well in his role. Upon being questioned as to how he had invoked the provisions of the European Communities (European Cooperate Society) (Employee Involvement) Regulations 2007, the complainant advised that he had never sought, been elected to or held a staff representative function in the company. He had never engaged with the respondent on behalf of staff concerns. The respondent is not a unionised business. He stated that he does not know how he can make a complaint under this provision. He is awaiting legal advice. Since lodging this complaint, he had been dismissed and has referred that complaint under the Act of 1977 to the WRC. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Respondent’s name The respondent’s representative asked to correct the respondent’s name. This was accepted and is reflected in the decision. Jurisdictional point The respondent submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to bring a complaint under section 20 of the EC (European Cooperative Society) Employee Involvement) Regulations 2007 ( the Regulations). The respondent is not a cooperative society established in accordance with regulations made under section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. Section 20 applies to the following categories of persons: A member of the special negotiating body, a member of the representative body, an employees’ representative performing functions under an information and consultation procedure or an employees’ representative in the supervisory or administrative organ of a (cooperative society) who is an employee of the (cooperative society), its subsidiaries or establishments or of a participating company. Clearly the complainant does not hold any of these roles. The respondent is a Designated Activity Company. The respondent submitted evidence confirming this. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Jurisdictional point. I invited the complainant to set out how he could draw on the protection of the Regulations and how having done so, he was then penalised. I find the complainant failed to make out his complaint and he further advised that he could not point to any breaches. The complainant was unable to illustrate how he should earn the protection of section 20 nor did he claim that he fulfilled any of the functions set out in section 20 of the Regulations. He did not make out his case. On the basis of the uncontested evidence submitted, I find the respondent is not a cooperative society coming under the reach of the Regulations. I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint |
Dated: December 2nd 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Claim of penalisation. European Cooperative Society (Employee Involvement )Regulations 2007 |