ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012989

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Warehouse Operative	A Services Company

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012	CA-00017078-001	25/01/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/03/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 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).

The issues in this case, albeit for another employee, were the subject of Adj 11729 and on Appeal to the Labour Court Determination No. AWD 185.

It was accepted that Adj 11729 and the Appeal AWD 185 would, in effect, stand as a Test Case for the allied cases.

The allied cases are Adjs no, 12989 (this case) ,12749, 12993, 12988, 12994 and 12991.

Background:

The case concerns a Warehouse Worker at a large Distribution Centre and his complaint that he is an Agency Worker i.e. a supplied employee as opposed to an employee of a Managed Service.

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Employer in this case – Respondent A - is an Employment Agency and supplies Personnel to Respondent B -an end user.

Accordingly, under the terms of Section 6 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 is entitled to the same terms and conditions as comparable employees of Respondent B.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Respondent A is not an Employment Agency rather it provides a Managed Service Contract to Respondent B. Accordingly the claim must fail for want of Adjudication officer jurisdiction. The claim is not covered by the cited Act.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

As discussed in the Procedures Section above the issues in this case were fully ventilated in Adj 11729 and on Appeal by the Labour Court in AWD 185. The basic material facts in this case are identical.

Accordingly, I must follow the decision of the Labour Court in AWD 185 and find I have no jurisdiction to take this case further.

4: Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary Decision /Please refer to Section Three above for detailed consideration.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012	CA-00017078-001	Claim is set aside – the Employment Relationship is not one of an Agency Worker and as such does not fall within the remit of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act,2012.

Dated: 30/05/19

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words: