ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018647
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Electrician | An Electrical Contractor |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 | CA-00023820-001 | 05/12/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 | CA-00023873-001 | 06/12/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/02/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act and Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 following 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).
At the commencement of the Oral Hearing it was clarified that the Complaint had not been brought under the Correct Legislation.
The Complaint centred on the reporting of a Safety Issue and the removal from a building Site of the Complainant, allegedly following the Reporting of alleged Safety issues.
The Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 deals more with formal reporting and formal Consultation mechanisms in larger organisations (50+ staff) and who may be involved in a TUPE type situation.
It was agreed that none of these conditions applied here and the claim was more proper to another piece of legislation.
Following discussion, it was agreed that the claim could proceed as a formality, but the outcome was clear.
Background:
The issues in contention concerned an Electrician and an Electrical Contracting Company. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant raised several Site Safety issues with the Main Contractor on a Dublin Site. Following these Complainants, he was removed from the site and transferred to another site by the Sub Contractor. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As stated above the claim under the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 is misplaced. It was accepted that a safety issue may have arisen at the original site but was properly handled, in keeping with normal procedures, by all concerned. No liability is accepted or admitted. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
As the complaint is misplaced under the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 I have no proper jurisdiction to hear the case. Accordingly, the claim is not well founded and must fall. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under the cited Acts.
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Summary Decision /Please refer to Section Three above for detailed arguments. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 | CA-00023820-001 | Claim is not well founded – (under the wrong Act) and must fall. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 | CA-00023873-001 | Duplicate of above complaint. Claim falls. |
Dated: 28.3.19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words: