ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013532
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018203-001 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018203-002 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018203-003 | 23/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00018203-004 | 23/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
There was a transfer of a previous undertaking to a previous entity (and the respondent in ADJ 7776 which is the substantive decision in this sequence of cases) on October 28th, 2015 where she continued in employment until about a year later when another transfer took place to the current respondent. The complainant transferred on both occasions. However, she has been on certified sick leave since August 2016 and has never attended for work with the current respondent. The other cases are ADJs 7778, 7779, 13531 and 13532. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant offered no evidence in respect of the above complaints. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent defends its position on the basis that the complainant, while continuing to be an employee of the respondent has never attended for work during its ownership of the business. The respondent assumed ownership of the business on October or November 2016 and the complainant has been on sick leave since August of that year. The facts grounding the complaints are historic facts for which the respondent has no responsibility. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is an entirely misconceived set of complaints. The bulk of the complaints were made in March 2018 and relate to events which took place in late 2015 and early the following year, although the complainant’s submission in respect of the other cases heard as part of this hearing makes no reference to the complaint numbers above. All of the facts on which the complaints are based took place happened during the tenure of the original transferor and/or the first transferee. (The complainant is on sick leave but remains in the employment of the second transferee.) They have not been made within the time limits and no case has been made out; accordingly, all the complaints are dismissed. |
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.
For the reasons set out above I dismiss complaints CA 0018203-001, 002, 003 and 004. |
Dated: 20/02/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Wrong respondent. |