ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023931
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Driver | Haulage Company |
Representatives | Self-Represented | John Connellan, Carley and Connellan Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00030436-001 | 22/08/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/12/2020 & 03/03/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant alleged he commenced employment with the Respondent on 2nd July 2018. Throughout his employment he was in receipt of a weekly salary of €550. The Complainant alleged that his employment transferred to a different employer on 16th June 2019. On 22nd August 2019, the Complainant lodged complaints against this Respondent and the transferee company. Hearings in relation to this matter were convened for 16th December 2020 and 3rd March 2020. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complaint alleged that the Respondent failed to ensure that the terms and conditions of his employment were maintained following a transfer of undertakings. Following a brief submission in relation to the same, the hearing was adjourned to allow the Complainant to issue a submission setting out the grounds on which he believed a transfer had occurred and to provide evidence that the named Respondent was in fact his former employer and the transferor for the purposes of the Regulations. On the resumed date, the Complainant failed to attend the hearing and failed to present any form of submission as requested. Having consulted the relevant file, I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the same and has subsequently failed notify the Commission of any circumstances that might explain his absence on the resumed date of hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the initial hearing of this matter. Prior to the resumed hearing, the Respondent’s representative issued correspondence stating the Complainant was not their employee and consequently they had no case to answer. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Prior to making a decision under Regulation 10, I must determine that the Respondent was in fact the Complainant’s former employer and the transferor for the purposes of the regulations. While the Respondent empathically denied that they ever employed the Complainant, the Complainant was unsure of the identity of his former employer. In the circumstances, and in given the Complainant’s failure to attend the resumed hearing and provide direct evidence in relation to this matter, I find that the Respondent was not the Complainant’s employer at the relevant time. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00030436-004 Given that the Respondent was not the Complainant’s employer at the relevant time, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 12th June 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Transfer of Undertakings, Non-attendance |