Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Bar Manager

A Sports Club

Representatives

Citizens Information Service

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00023339-001

19/11/2018

Preliminary Matter

The respondent named in the complaint says that it is not the complainant’s employer and is not therefore the correct respondent in the case.

The complainant was employed by a social club which had associations with the respondent, which is a football club, but it is not the correct entity for this complaint.

This is clear from the headed paper on the communications to the complainant and the correct identity of his employer should have been known to him.

Specifically, a letter to the Department of Social Protection stating the correct respondent’s name was copied to the complainant’s representative in October 2018.

The complainant is aware of the issue raised by the respondent.

However, there is a very close relationship between the two entities and the complainant sought to amend the name of the respondent to enable the case to proceed.

There were a number of the letters and documents submitted for the hearing to which the respondent had referred as indicating the true employer.

In fact, they bear both the current respondent’s name and crest, as well as the entity described as being the complainant’s actual employer; the social club associated with the football club named in this case as the respondent.

There was clearly a close relationship between the two entities.

There is or has been a considerable overlap between the personnel in both the social and the football club. The representative of the respondent named in the case who attended the hearing is also Treasurer of the social club.

Nonetheless, he was not mandated to act for the true employer and declined to do so when asked at the hearing.

Also, the respondent as named in this case no longer exists as it has merged with another club and amended its name to reflect the merger.

There seems little doubt that had the respondent been minded to do so it could have presented at the hearing with the correct personnel (very possibly in one case the same person who did attend) and saved both itself and the complainant a degree of unnecessary inconvenience.

It chose not to do so.

This is especially the case as the complainant is still within time to make a reference naming the correct employer and a further hearing will take place in due course.

But in all the circumstances it was not possible to proceed against the current respondent which is clearly not his legal employer.

For the reasons set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-00023339-001 and it is dismissed.

Incorrect respondent.