EDA1937

Introduction
This is an appeal by Colm Mc Namee (the Complainant) against the Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00012254 in his complaint of discrimination on the ground of disability by Department of Social Affairs and Social protection (the Respondent). The complaints were made pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the Acts).

The Adjudication Officer found that the complaints were res judicata as the issue had already been decided.

Background

This case concerns a complaint by the Complainant that he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability regarding his terms and conditions of employment by the Respondent as his Employer or in the alternative as an Agency in contravention of Section 11 and section 16 (4) of the Acts. The Complainant was a Community Employment Supervisor since 2006 and it is his contention that the Respondent is his employer or in the alternative is an Agency that placed him with his employer. The Complainant lodged his claim with the WRC on the 20^thDecember 2017. The cognisable period for the purpose of the Act therefore is 21^stJune 2017 to the 20th December 2017.

Preliminary issue

It is the Respondent’s contention that they are not the Complainant’s employer and that this issue was already addressed by Adjudication Officer Decision ADJ 00006247 where it was held by the Adjudication Officer “I find that the Respondent named in this instant case, is neither a provider of goods and services not the employer of the complainant. His complaints are misconceived, and I decline jurisdiction on this matter.This decision issued on the 20^thAugust 2018 and was not appealed. The Respondent submitted that the Court is bound to follow the doctrine of Res Judicata is this case as the issue has already been decided.

It is the Complainant’s submission that the case citied refers to a complaint under the Equal Status Act and that the Adjudication Officer went beyond their jurisdiction in making that decision. The Complainant accepted that he had not appealed the decision or sought a Judicial Review.

In relation to the Complainant’s alternative argument it is the Respondent’s submission that they have no relationship with the Complainant. They provided funding for his employer. They are not an Agency and they have no contractual relationship with the Complainant and therefore the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

It is the Complainant’s submission that he has received instructions directly from a member of staff of the Respondent and that a member of staff of the Respondent sat on his interview board. In response to a question from the Court the Complainant confirmed that outside of his employment with Mountrath Amalgamated Community Employment Programme Limited he did not have any relationship with the Respondent.

Determination

The issue of whether the Respondent is the Complainant’s employer was decided by Adjudication Officer Decision ADJ00006247. That decision was not appealed. Therefore, the issue isres judicataand his claim must fail. In relation to the second element of his claim that the Respondent is an Agency the Complainant has not established any relationship with the Respondent outside of what is required by his role as a Community Employment Supervisor with Mountrath Amalgamated Community Employment Programme Limited and on that basis this element of his claim must also fail.

The Court determines that the claims are misconceived and must fail. The Decision of the Adjudication officer is upheld.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
DC______________________
21 November 2019Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.