Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A School Secretary

A Government Department

Representatives

Self Represented

A HR Representative

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00023929-001

08/12/2018

The Complainant alleged she was unfairly dismissed on August 31st 2018.

The Complainant commenced employment in March 2008 on a continuous series of contracts. The exact number of contracts and whether they were written or oral were not available but appear to have been renewed annually in line with the School year.

In 2012 the Complainant was then given a written Fixed Term Contract for the period from September 1st 2012 to August 31st 2013. The named employer on the contract was not the Respondent but School X.

In between the period from September 1s 2013 and August 31st 2018 the Complainant again operated without an updated or written contract.

In September 2018 the Complainant was given a further contract commencing September 1st 2018. From review of the contract it appears to be a permanent contract (as opposed to the fixed term contract mentioned above). This contract also stated the employer as School X.

The Complainant was employed, in general, on a 20 hour week.   In June 2018 her opposite Job Sharer unfortunately died and the Complainant expected to be offered her hours but this did not happen. Another person was offered the post.

The Complainant was in continuous employment from March 2008 and stated she was unfairly dismissed on August 31st 2018 by a Government Body (The Respondent).

The Respondent denied that they were the Complainants employer and that they had no case to answer. They stated they had no contract with the Complainant, that the Complainant was employed by a Board of School Management and Section 24 of the Education Act 1998 (and the Courts and legal precedents) have determined that staff in the Complainants case are employed by the School and not a Government Department. They did note that the post occupied by the Complainant “was sanctioned in the context of the permanent Clerical Officers job sharing request”.

The Respondent denied they were the Complainants employer that any dismissal took place.

The Complainant submitted her claim form to the WRC on December 8th 2018. She claimed to be dismissed by the Respondent on August 31st 2018.

Following a review of the contracts provided to the Adjudicator it is important to set out the sequence of events regarding the Complainants contractual situation. This is important both in the context of the claim and the Respondents position, who accepted they were responsible for paying the Complainants salary, but were not her employer. The Complainants exact employment status seems to have a history were no written contracts were provided in stages of her employment. What is clear is that she commenced employment with School X as her employer in March 2008 and was provided with at least two written contacts since then by School X. She worked on what appears to be annually renewed verbal contracts with School X each year from March 2008 to August 31st 2012. This would appear to be at least three individual annual contracts. Then she was given a written fixed term contract by School X from September 1st 2012 to August 31st 2013. This is the fourth contracted period. Then she appears to have been continuously engaged by School X on annual verbal contracts from September 1st 2013 to when she was given her current written contract with School X commencing September 1st 2018 which appears to be a permanent contract. At no stage is the Respondent identified as the Complainants employer in this sequence of contracts. School X was at all times her employer.

It is clear from the information provided that the Complainant has been employed on a continuous basis since March 2008 by School X. It is also clear that the Respondent was not the Complainants employer at any stage. Therefore, as the Respondent was not the Complainants employer it was not possible for them to dismiss her and her claim for Unfair Dismissal against the Respondent fails. For the sake of completeness is also clear that the Complainant has not been dismissed by School X as she was still employed by School X (who were not a named Respondent to the claim) at the date of the Hearing. The claim for Unfair Dismissal fails accordingly.

Unfair Dismissal