FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 15 (1), EMPLOYEES (PROVISION OF INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION) ACT, 2006 PARTIES : FTP RECRUITMENT LIMITED T/A CLARITY LOCUMS - AND - JOHN MADDEN DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No(s) ADJ-00022038 CA-00028788-003.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on 26 November 2019, in accordance with Section 15(1) of the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act,2006. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 7 February 2020
DETERMINATION:
The case came before the Court by way of a complaint under Section 15(1) of the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006 (“the Act”). The Adjudication Officer found that the claim was not well-founded.
For ease of reference the parties are given the same designations as they had at first instance. Hence Mr John Madden will be referred to as “the Complainant” and FTP Recruitment t/a Clarity Locums Limited will be referred to as “the Respondent”.
The Complainant referred his claim to the Workplace Relations Commission on 31st May 2019. The Adjudication Officer hearing took place on 6th October 2019, and his Decision was issued on 16th October 2019. The Complainant appealed the Decision on 26th November 2019.
The Complainant claimed that he was penalised for reporting and raising concerns over alleged breaches of employment rights by the Respondent. He claims that as a result he was blacklisted and has been unable to acquire work through the agency since.
Background
The Respondent is an employment agency licenced in accordance with the provision of the Employment Agency Act 1971. The Complainant is a pharmacist registered with Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland. It is not disputed that the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent. He worked as a Locum Pharmacist for the Respondent in various pharmacy clients.
Court Findings
The Act contains provisions for the protection of employee representatives from penalisation by an employer for performing their information and consultation duties and functions. In order to be encompassed by the terms of the Act, the Complainant must establish that he was an“employees’ representative”as defined by Section 6 of the Act, which required that he be elected or appointed by employees who are members of a trade union or excepted body.
It was confirmed for the Court that the Complainant was neither elected or appointed as an employee representative in accordance with Section 6 of the Act, therefore the Complainant does not havelocus standiunder the Act.
Furthermore, Section 15(2) of the Act sets out a number of conditions that must be met before the dispute may be referred to the Court. In this case none of those conditions have been satisfied.
As neither the requirements of Section 6 nor Sections 15(1) and (2) of the Act have not been satisfied the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
Determination
As the conditions precedent under the Act have not been met the Court finds that the Complainant’s complaint is misconceived in law, and the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside and substituted with the terms of this Determination
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
DC______________________
12 February 2020Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.