ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Electronics Assembler | An Electronics Manufacturer |
Representatives |
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00028049-001 | ||
CA-00028050-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969]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).
Background:
The Complainant is an agency worker and was deployed by an employment agency to work in an electronics manufacturing enterprise. The named Respondent is the ‘Hirer’ and a preliminary point was raised by the Respondent as to whether it is the correct respondent. |
CA-00028050-001
At the outset of the hearing CA-00028050-001 was withdrawn by the Complainant.
CA-00028049-001
Preliminary Point
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted that they are not the correct Respondent and that the Complainant was an employee of another entity, an employment agency. The Respondent submits that it did not enter into a contract of employment with the Complainant, was not responsible for the wages of the Complainant and has never paid any monies directly to the Complainant. A witness from the employment agency, referred to above, attended the hearing and gave evidence in support of the Respondent’s argument. The Respondent requested that the complaint be dismissed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant confirmed in his evidence that he had been deployed to work with the Respondent, which was his place of work and that his day to day instructions were given to him by the Respondent’s managers. The reason he had taken the claim against the Respondent is because it was they who had, in his opinion, decided to dismiss him and the dismissal was unfair. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the circumstances, I find that the Respondent named in the complaint is not the correct one and I have no jurisdiction to make a finding in the case. |
RECOMMENDATION:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons set out above I do not uphold CA-00028049-001 and it is dismissed. |
Dated: 12/09/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
Agency Worker, wrong respondent. |