Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employment Agency

Representatives

N/A

David Kearney, HR Brief Ltd

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00028788-001

31/05/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00028788-002

31/05/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006

CA-00028788-003

31/05/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00028788-006

31/05/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012

CA-00028788-007

31/05/2019

On 9th May 2019, the Complainant was engaged as an agency worker by the Respondent in a role where he complained that there was inadequate supervision. As a result of the Complainant’s actions on the day, the agency’s client made a formal complaint against him. The subsequent investigatory and disciplinary process led to the Complainant being dismissed from the agency’s employment on the grounds of gross misconduct. The Complainant alleged that he was set up to fail by the agency and that he has been blacklisted ever since.

CA-00028788-001:

The Complainant stated that the position he was placed in on 9th May was advertised in bad faith and added that he accepted the offer of work under false pretences. He considered that the sanction of dismissal was too harsh and believed that there should have been some warning given to him in advance. He also believed that the disciplinary process had a pre-determined conclusion.

CA-00028788-002:

The Complainant claimed that there was a lack of supervision in the business on 9th May and that as a result agency personnel were acting in their stead.

CA-00028788-003:

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent penalised him for reporting and raising concerns over breaches of employment rights. He further claimed that he was blacklisted as a result of his complaints as he has been unable to acquire work through the agency.

CA-00028788-006:

The Complainant states that it is unclear who the employer is and believes that the true picture is being obfuscated. He also claimed that different contracting options have been presented to agency personnel which would enable them to act as self-employed.

CA-00028788-007:

The Complainant states that he was not given breaks and operated without adequate supervision.

CA-00028788-001:

The Respondent stated that the claim should be dismissed because it was referred to the WRC for adjudication on 31st May, prior to the internal appeal process being exhausted on 10th June 2019. It was also stated that the Complainant’s actions constituted gross misconduct and that fair procedures, as well as natural justice, were afforded to him at all times.

CA-00028788-002:

The Respondent asserted that there were no acting up arrangements provided by collective agreement or statute within the sector. It was also stated that there was no regulatory requirement to have a supervisor in the business at all times and that the agency staff would therefore not need to act up.

CA-00028788-003:

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was a self-appointed advocate with no jurisdiction or requirement to claim the protected status of an employee representative. The Respondent also added that the Complainant raised a number of matters relating to himself during the course of his employment and stated that all of these were addressed. The allegations of blacklisting and penalisation were also rejected.

CA-00028788-006:

The Respondent asserted that the Complainant received a contract of employment which fulfilled   obligations under the Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994 and provided a copy of this at the hearing.

CA-00028788-007:

The Respondent stated that the Complainant failed to name a comparator and did not produce any evidence to suggest that he did not enjoy the same terms and conditions as the end user’s employees while on placement. It was also stated that the Complainant refused to complete timesheets which would have demonstrated what breaks were taken.

CA-00028788-001:

The Complainant should have waited until the internal appeal mechanisms were exhausted prior to referring the matter to the WRC for adjudication. Accordingly, this complaint is not well- founded.

CA-00028788-002:

I am satisfied that there was no regulatory or legislative requirement for a supervisor to be present in the business at all times and that there was no need for agency personnel to act up. Accordingly, this complaint is not well- founded.

CA-00028788-003:

I am satisfied that that the Complainant was a self-appointed advocate and did not therefore have the protected status of an employee representative. Given that he does not have this protected status, I cannot uphold any of the allegations he has made under this Act and I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00028788-006:

I consider that this particular complaint was not well founded because the Complainant failed to produce any evidence to show how the Respondent breached this Act in any respect.

CA-00028788-007:

I consider this particular complaint was not well founded because the Complainant failed to produce any evidence to show that he was treated in an inferior way to non-agency employees who were engaged by the agency’s clients on a permanent basis.

CA-00028788-001:

I consider that this complaint was not well- founded for the reasons set out above.

CA-00028788-002:

I consider that this complaint was not well- founded for the reasons set out above.

CA-00028788-003:

I consider that this complaint was not well- founded for the reasons set out above.

CA-00028788-006:

I consider that this complaint was not well- founded for the reasons set out above.

CA-00028788-007:

I consider that this complaint was not well- founded for the reasons set out above.