ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012440
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00016476-001 | 21/12/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00016476-002 | 21/12/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/05/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
The complainant referred complaints against three respondents arising from her employment as a GP between 1 September 2014 and 30 June 2017. These complaints are subject to reports in ADJ-00009761, ADJ-00010315, ADJ-00010319, ADJ-00012432 and ADJ-00012440. The complaints were made pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, the Payment of Wages Act, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act and the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act.
For clarity, the respondents are referred to as the public body respondent, the GP Coordinator respondent and the Agency respondent. The evidence also refers to a limited company through which the complainant invoiced for her services. This entity is referred to as the Company.
The complaints were scheduled for hearing on 31 May 2018. The complainant was represented by Lauren Tennyson BL instructed by O’Mara Geraghty McCourt solicitors. The public body and the GP Coordinator respondents were represented by Mason Hayes & Curran solicitors. ESA Consultants represented the Agency respondent.
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andSection 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant asserted that there were contraventions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term) Work Act, including penalisation. She asserts that she is entitled to a Contract of Indefinite Duration by operation of the law. The complainant outlined that this complaint was made against the GP Coordinator as it was not clear what her role was. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent public body outlined that the GP Coordinator was its employee and acted in her capacity as GP Coordinator in her dealings with the complainant. It submitted that the public body was the correct respondent to any complaint and not the GP Coordinator personally. The GP Coordinator gave evidence to the adjudication in this capacity. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In respect of complaints CA-00016476-001 and CA-00016476-002, I find that the correct respondent is the public body and not the GP Coordinator. The GP Coordinator was an employee of the respondent and interacted with the complainant in this capacity, i.e. as GP Coordinator. For this reason, the complaints against the GP Coordinator personally are not well founded. |
Decisions:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00016476-001 I find that the complaint pursuant to the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Time Work) Act is not well-founded.
CA-00016476-002 I find that the complaint pursuant to the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Time Work) Act is not well-founded. |
Dated: 01/05/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Correct respondent |