Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A CE scheme Participant

Family Resource Centre

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00031272-001

03/10/2019

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

CA-00031272-002

03/10/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00031272-003

03/10/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00031272-004

03/10/2019

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

CA-00031272-005

03/10/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00031272-006

03/10/2019

The Complainant commenced working with the Respondent on 29th August 2016 as a TUS participant, as a caretaker/maintenance person. A TUS Scheme is generally no longer than one year and so in July 2017 the Complainant transferred to a CE Scheme, thus enabling him to continue in the aforementioned role. The CE Scheme Sponsor is a Community & Family Training Agency and is not the Respondent. The Complainant was involved in two critical incidents at the Respondent’s premises during 2018/19 and as a result, the Complainant was required by the Scheme Sponsor to cease working at that premises in August 2019. The Respondent had received confirmation of funding for a permanent position in mid - 2019 and following advertising and interview another individual was successful in obtaining the position. The Complainant has referred a total of 6 complaints to the WRC seeking adjudication under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003, Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, and Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

The Respondent is a Child & Family Resource Centre founded in 2014 as an initiative to support local families to achieve their full potential by providing a range of universal and targeted services and development opportunities. The Organisation works locally to improve learning and wellbeing outcomes for children, young people and parents.   The Centre is managed by a Voluntary Board of Management and receives its’ core funding from TUSLA with supplementary funding from Dublin City Council as well as through organisational fund raising. The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant made a very valuable contribution to their organisation but disputes the complaints.

CA-00031272-001 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant submitted that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment. He confirmed that he commenced working at the resource centre under the organisation TUS on 29th August 2016. He confirmed that the description of the role was that of Caretaker and that he was given a brief description as to what his role and duties were to be, as well as information regarding his shift pattern by the Respondent.

CA-00031272-002 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant submitted that he was not notified in writing of a change to his terms and conditions in accordance with the requirements of the Act. He submits that his terms were amended at the end of his first year as a CE Scheme participant and that he was not notified in writing of these changes.

CA – 00031272-03 Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The Complainant submitted that he was employed by the Respondent since 29th August 2016, firstly as a TUS participant and as a CE scheme participant from September 2017 up until the termination of his employment in September 2019.   He submitted that throughout that time he worked as caretaker in the centre, received positive feedback in relation to his performance, worked well with colleagues and management and was considered a key member of the team by management and staff at the centre.   He submitted that he was entrusted with details relating to security codes and access to alarms, as well as being assigned the responsibility of key holder.  He outlined that he was encouraged to move from the TUS scheme to the CE Scheme to prolong his employment with the Respondent and he was advised that the Respondent was seeking funding to create a permanent position in order to retain his services.

He submitted that he had dealt with two serious incidents in 2018/19 and that he had brought these matters to the attention of the Respondent. While the matters were addressed by the Respondent, gardai informed, safety measures put in place etc., the Complainant submitted that the Department of Employment Affairs & Social Protection (DEASP) “somehow found out about the incidents” and on 1st August, just over two months after the last incident had occurred, they removed him and another scheme participant from the building.   While the Complainant submitted that the DEASP and the Scheme Sponsor indicated that this was for the safety of the individuals concerned, he indicated that he was sceptical about the reason for this decision. He pointed out that when a previous serious incident had occurred in July 2018 involving firearms no support was given by the centre and nobody was removed from the premises.

The Complainant submitted that in mid - June 2019 the Manager approached him and advised him that the Respondent had been successful in securing funding for a fulltime permanent position of caretaker. Approximately 2 weeks later the Complainant advised that he was given a job description for the new role and details of salary etc. The closing date for applications was set at 19th August 2019.

The Complainant indicated that he attended for interview on Monday 26th August and that the interview panel was comprised of 3 individuals, all from the local area.   He expressed surprise that the Manager was not on the interview board, particularly as she had gone to some lengths to keep him on board over the previous 3 years. The Complainant submitted that many of the questions did not seem relevant, that he was asked questions as though he was not familiar with the workplace and the role and that he was also asked an inappropriate question. He submitted that this question “threw him off” and soon after this the interview ended.  

He advised that the Respondent held a Summer BBQ on Wednesday 28th August which he was unable to attend. He advised that he was informed by former colleagues that the successful candidate from the interview was in attendance. The Complainant advised that the successful candidate would have been required to undergo the garda vetting process and that this could not have been completed within 2 days, thus demonstrating that the outcome of the interview was pre-determined. He further advised that he was not notified until the afternoon of Friday 30th August that he was unsuccessful at interview. The Complainant submitted that the interview process was biased against him, that a candidate was already pre-selected at the time of the interview, that he was treated as a permanent employee for 3 years and then discarded. Taking all of these issues into account the Complainant submitted that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent.

CA – 00031272-04 Complaint under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent had failed to offer him a written statement setting out the objective grounds justifying the renewal of a fixed terms contract and had failed to offer him a contract of indefinite duration. The Complainant submitted that he worked under a Fixed Term contract of 1 year with the Respondent from 18th September 2017 to 14th September 2018 as a participant in a CE Scheme. This contract was extended for a further year up until 13th September 2019.   He submitted that the respondent failed to justify that extension and failed to provide him with a contract of indefinite duration at that time.

CA – 00031272-05 Complaint under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012

The Complainant submitted that he was not informed by the employer to whom he was hired out (the Hirer) as an agency worker of a vacant position with the Hirer. In his submission the Complainant stated that in July 2019 he was advised by the Centre Manager that the Respondent had received confirmation of funding for a full- time position of caretaker and that in mid - July he was “handed a job description”. He stated further that “in the job description it was advised to submit a cv and the closing date was 19th August.”

CA – 00031272-06 Complaint under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

The Complainant submitted that he was discriminated against by the Respondent in relation to his application and interview for a post of caretaker. He submitted that he was not given an equal opportunity in getting the role as he believed the successful candidate was known to a member or members of the interview board and was also known within the local community, which he was not. He believed he was not given an equal opportunity to showcase his skills and attributes to the members of the interview board as they did not know him or his work history. He submitted that the interview questions were not relevant to the role advertised and that he was “suspicious of the whole interview process.” He expressed concern that the Centre Manager was not a member of the interview panel and about the brevity of the interview. He indicated that he had reported two critical incidents to the General Manager and this was a key reason why he did not get the position.

CA-00031272-001 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

At the outset the Respondent pointed out that the Complainant was not an employee of their organisation but rather he was firstly a TUS participant and latterly, a CE Scheme participant on a placement with their organisation. As such the Respondent submitted that they had no responsibility to provide the Complainant with terms of employment in accordance with the Act.

The Respondent further submitted that when the Complainant first began working at the resource centre he received and signed a written statement of terms and conditions on 18th September 2017. These terms were issued by the CE Scheme Sponsor and were signed between the Complainant and the CE Scheme Sponsor. In these circumstances the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not their employee and therefore does not have standing to maintain this claim.   The Respondent submits that, in the alternative, the CE Scheme Sponsor did provide the Complainant with written terms and conditions and that these were co-signed by both the Complainant and the CE Scheme Sponsor.

CA-00031272-002 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not an employee of their organisation but rather he was firstly a TUS participant and latterly, a CE Scheme participant on a placement with their organisation. As such the Respondent submitted that they had no responsibility to provide the Complainant with terms of employment in accordance with the Act.

The Respondent further submitted that the CE Programme of which the Complainant was a participant is administered by the Department of Employment Affairs& Social Protection.   The rules of the Scheme are that for CE participants aged between 21 and 55 years, the CE placement generally last for one year. However, if a participant is working towards a major QQI award, can be extended by up to 2 years to complete this award. When the Complainant’s participation on the Scheme was reviewed in June 2018 he was approved for a second year as he was studying for a QQI level 6 award. This approval extended his placement period from September 2018 to September 2019.   The Respondent submitted that at the time of this approval the Complainant was given a further written statement of terms and conditions by the CE Scheme Sponsor which both he and the Scheme Sponsor signed.

CA – 00031272-03 Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not an employee of their organisation but rather he was firstly, a TUS participant, and latterly, a CE Scheme participant on a placement with their organisation. As such, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant, not being their employee could not maintain these proceedings and that the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to entertain this claim.

In the alternative, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s employment was not ended by them. The Respondent advised that the Complainant’s employment on the CE Scheme commenced on 18th September 2017. Under the rules of that scheme he was deemed eligible for a 52-week period from the date of his commencement and this eligibility ceased on 14th September 2018. The Respondent further submitted that where a scheme participant was undertaking a QQI level 6 award the CE placement could be extended by a further 2 years to allow for completion of the award. The Respondent submitted that the CE Scheme Sponsor confirmed to the Complainant in June 2018 that a second year on the scheme would commence on 17th September 2018 as the Complainant was undertaking the QQI level 6 award. This arrangement was notified in writing as coming to an end on 13th September 2019. The Respondent pointed out that they had no role in this decision-making process and merely facilitated the placement.

The Respondent also advised that they had a robust and fair selection process in place, that the Complainant scored in the bottom 50% of interviewees and that this matter was not relevant to the termination of his employment.

The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant had dropped out of Module 1 of the QQI level 6 award and as he was no longer completing a full award he could not be put forward by the CE Scheme Sponsor for a third year. In these circumstances and in view of the fact that the CE Scheme Sponsor had a clause in the signed contract between them and the Complainant which stated that the provisions of the Unfair Dismissal Act “shall not apply to a dismissal” relating to the expiry of a fixed term contract, the Respondent advised that the Complainant’s employment on the scheme came to an end upon the expiry of that fixed term contract on 13th September 2019. A copy of the contract was presented at hearing.

In summary the Respondent contended that they were never the employer of the Complainant and that therefore the Complainant does not have standing to maintain this claim against them. Alternatively, the Respondent contends that the Complainant’s contract came to an end due to the expiry of a fixed term contract and that all appropriate notice of this was contained in the contracts entered into between the Complainant and the CE Scheme Sponsor.

CA – 00031272-04 Complaint under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

The Respondent submitted that they were not the employer of the Complainant. The Respondent further submitted that they facilitated the work placement of a number of CE Scheme participants and that the Scheme Sponsor was another organisation. By way of supporting documentation the Respondent provided a copy of a contract between the Complainant and the Scheme Sponsor which defined the nature and duration of the contract (i.e. 18th September 2017 to 14th September 2018). The Respondent also provided a copy of a second contract between the Complainant and the Scheme Sponsor which confirmed the extension to the contract from 17th September 2018 to 13th September 2019. The Respondent submitted that as they never were the employer of the Complainant they were not responsible for contractual documentation and that, to the best of their knowledge, appropriate documentation had been provided by the CE Scheme Sponsor.

CA – 00031272-05 Complaint under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012

The Respondent submitted that in July 2019 they received funding for a full-time caretaker role and that both the Complainant and another colleague were “handed the job description and person specification for the position” by the Centre Manager. The Respondent also submitted that the position was also advertised in the local job centre. The Respondent submitted that both internal candidates applied for the job.

CA – 00031272-06 Complaint under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

The Respondent submitted that they had received funding for a full-time Caretaker position in July 2019 and had informed the Complainant and another colleague about the role and provided them both with a copy of the job description which contained details of the application process. On foot of the experience of 2 critical incidents in 2018 and 2019 the Board of Management had decided that the successful candidate should have security experience, and this was included in the new job description. The position was also advertised in the local job centre and this generated a lot of interest. The Respondent submitted that they received 35 applications. These were shortlisted against the predefined requirements for the role and 7 candidates were shortlisted for the role, including the Complainant.

The Respondent submitted that the interview board did not comprise of all local people, rather it comprised of 3 people, one of whom lived locally and 2 who worked locally.   The Board of Management had put in place a conflict of interest document and on foot of completion of same it was agreed that the Centre Manager should not sit as a member of the Complainant’s interview board. The Centre Manager was replaced for that interview by the Chairperson of the Board of the Management.

The Respondent further submitted that a list of questions was drawn up in advance of the interview, that these questions were based on the job description and were asked of all candidates. Evaluation criteria and a scoring scheme was put in place and agreed, in advance, with all members of the interview board. Interviews were held on 26th August 2019.

At interview the Respondent said that the Complainant initially appeared confident and capable and demonstrated that he had discharged his role of Caretaker to a good standard. During the second set of questions the Respondent described how the Complainant again seemed confident and capable and discussed other skills which he had which were beyond his job description.

The Respondent submitted that the third question related to dealing with difficult situations and how the Complainant had dealt with them. The Respondent outlined that the Complainant began to discuss the incident that had occurred at the centre a few months earlier and became visibly distressed. The interview board offered to suspend the interview for a short while to allow the Complainant to compose himself and the Complainant availed of this break. The Respondent submitted that after the break the interview resumed and proceeded as normal.

In assessing the candidates, the interview board determined that the Complainant had demonstrated strong skills and capability in relation to the caretaker side of the job but determined that the Complainant did not come up to the standard required to carry out the security side of the role. The Respondent further submitted that the interview board felt that the Complainant’s personality and coping skills did not “meet this part of the job.”

In view of the robust procedures put in place, the equal treatment of candidates, the extensive interview documentation and the support shown to the Complainant throughout the interview the Respondent denies any discrimination against the Complainant.

CA-00031272-001 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Having considered the evidence provided at hearing, the written submissions of the parties and supporting documentation it is evident that a set of terms and conditions were provided by the CE Scheme Sponsor to the Complainant and these were signed by both the Complainant and the CE Scheme Sponsor on 18th September 2017. A copy of this document was provided by the Respondent. This document is not disputed by the Complainant.

Both parties also agreed that arrangements regarding rosters were agreed between the Complainant and the Respondent at the outset of the working arrangement and that a job description was provided. A copy of the job description was also provided by the Respondent at the hearing.

Section 1 (1)(b) of the Act defines an employee as “a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment….”

The Act goes on to define an employer as “the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment subject to the qualification that the person who under a contract of employment referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of “contract of employment” is liable to pay the wages of the individual concerned in respect of the work or service concerned shall be deemed to be the individual’s employer;”

At the hearing the Respondent confirmed that they were not responsible for payment of wages and the Complainant confirmed that he received remuneration in this regard by way of bank transfer from the CE Scheme Sponsor.   In these circumstances I find that the Complainant is not an employee of the Respondent within the meaning of the Act and therefore, does not have “locus standi” to maintain this claim.

CA-00031272-002 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Having considered the evidence provided at hearing, the written submissions of the parties and supporting documentation it is evident that a set of terms and conditions were provided by the CE Scheme Sponsor to the Complainant and these were signed by both the Complainant and the CE Scheme Sponsor. A copy of this document was provided by the Respondent and I noted that it was signed and dated as at 15th June 2018.

The timing of the provision of this document and it’s subsequent signing is disputed by the Complainant. He submitted that this and other scheme administrative documents were only provided to him when he met with the CE Scheme Supervisor at his final review meeting on 27th June 2019. This review meeting was held 3 months in advance of the end of his term as CE Scheme participant. He advised that he did not sign the document and that the signature on the document did not appear to be his signature. He also advised that he had made the manager of the resource centre aware that he had received the document containing terms and conditions at that meeting.

The Manager who was present at the hearing confirmed that she did recall him advising her of the situation, but she also confirmed that she had sought information from the CE Scheme Sponsor and that she had been advised by them that the document had been signed on 15th June 2018. This was the document which the Respondent had submitted by way of supporting documentation.

Section 1 (1)(b) of the Act defines an employee as “a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment….”

The Act goes on to define an employer as “the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment subject to the qualification that the person who under a contract of employment referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of “contract of employment” is liable to pay the wages of the individual concerned in respect of the work or service concerned shall be deemed to be the individual’s employer;”

At the hearing the Respondent confirmed that they were not responsible for payment of wages and the Complainant confirmed that he received remuneration in this regard by way of bank transfer from the CE Scheme Sponsor.   In these circumstances I find that the Complainant is not an employee of the Respondent within the meaning of the Act and therefore, does not have “locus standi” to maintain this claim.

CA – 00031272-03 Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

Having considered the evidence provided at hearing, the written submissions of the parties and supporting documentation it is evident that no contract of employment (either verbal or written) was entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent. It is also clear that from the outset the Complainant was fully aware that he was firstly a TUS participant and latterly a CE Scheme participant on a placement with the Respondent.   It is also clear that he understood that the Scheme Sponsor was the Community & Family Training Agency and not the Respondent. He confirmed that he had signed the original terms and conditions contract with that party. He also confirmed that he met with the CE Scheme Supervisor regularly for reviews, that he notified them of his leave arrangements and that his wages were paid by the CE Scheme Sponsor.

The case before me is that the Respondent unfairly dismissed the Complainant. This complaint does not require me to consider whether the actions of the CE Scheme Sponsor constituted an unfair dismissal. However, what is clear and undisputed is the fact that the CE Scheme Sponsor and the DEASP removed both the Complainant and another CE Scheme participant from the premises of the Respondent at the end of July 2019 based on, what they described as, safety concerns. It is also undisputed that the Complainant’s employment on the Scheme did not end until 13th September 2019 which was the end date of his fixed term contract.

Based on the above I find that the Complainant is not an employee of the Respondent and furthermore that the Respondent had no role in the decision to terminate the employment of the Complainant.

CA – 00031272-04 Complaint under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

Having considered the evidence provided at hearing, the written submissions of the parties and supporting documentation it is evident that no contract of employment (either verbal or written) was entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent. It is also clear that from the outset the Complainant was fully aware that he was firstly a TUS participant and latterly a CE Scheme participant on a placement with the Respondent.   It is also clear that he understood that the Scheme Sponsor was the Community & Family Training Agency and not the Respondent. He confirmed that he had signed the original terms and conditions contract with that party. He also confirmed that he met with the CE Scheme Supervisor regularly for reviews, that he notified them of his leave arrangements and that his wages were paid by the CE Scheme Sponsor.

The case before me is that the Respondent failed to offer a written statement setting out the objective grounds justifying the renewal of a fixed term contract and failed to offer the complainant a contract of indefinite duration. This complaint does not require me to consider whether the actions of the CE Scheme Sponsor constituted a breach of the protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003. However, what is clear and undisputed is the fact that the Respondent is not the CE Scheme Sponsor and furthermore that the CE Scheme Sponsor and the Complainant were the parties to the fixed term contract.   In these circumstances I find that the Respondent is not the employer of the Complainant and therefore is not liable in this matter under the Act.

CA – 00031272-05 Complaint under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012

Notwithstanding his complaint, the Complainant concurred with the position of the Respondent, both in his pre-hearing submission and in evidence at the hearing, that he had been handed the job description which contained details of the application process for the position of caretaker. The Complainant did not refer to any other position not being brought to his attention.

I note also that Section 4 of the act states “This Act shall not apply to work carried out pursuant to a placement under (a) the work placement programme administered by An Foras Aiseanna Saothair, (b) the scheme administered by An Foras Aiseanna Saothair known as the national internship scheme, (c) any variation, extension or replacement of the programme referred to in paragraph (a) or scheme referred to in paragraph (b) or (d) any vocational training, integration or retraining scheme or programme financed out of public moneys that the Minister may specify by order”

The Complainant is a CE Scheme participant and therefore, in accordance with the above provision is not covered by the Act. In these circumstances I do not have jurisdiction to consider this claim.

CA – 00031272-06 Complaint under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

At the hearing, that the parties held very differing views on this matter. On the one hand, the Complainant believed that the role had been deliberately changed from that which he had carried out, that the interview board was biased against him and biased towards the successful candidate, that the questions asked were not all relevant to the role and did not allow him to demonstrate his skills and strengths and that he felt he did not get the job because of reporting previous incidents.

Alternatively, the Respondent believed that a fair and robust procedure had been utilised, that the interview board was balanced and free from any conflict of interest, that the process was well documented and supported the ultimate decision of the interview board and that the Complainant had been well supported both in relation to incidents that had occurred during his placement and during the course of the interview. The Respondent clarified that the role had been amended at the request of the Board of Management following consideration of the critical incidents which had previously occurred.

The Respondent provided copies of the interview documentation to me and these were provided to the Complainant and a short adjournment was taken to allow him to review same. When the hearing reconvened a discussion took place , involving examination of both parties evidence, as well as cross examination and through that process it emerged that the notes of the Complainant’s interview contained some blank spaces where his responses should have been recorded. The Complainant suggested that he had never been asked any of those questions and that when the interview had resumed after the break he was only asked one or two short questions and the interview ended.

I noted that there was not a clear linkage between the job description, the questions and the scoring scheme and struggled to understand the connectivity between the scoring and the responses recorded. No direct evidence of why the Complainant had a number of “blank sections” in his notes was available on the day as no member of his interview board was present.   I also noted that the General Manager confirmed to me, in response to my question, that at no time did the 4 individuals who formed the varying interview panels come together to ensure that they were applying a consistent objective assessment to all candidates.   I formed the impression from the responses received that the Complainant was assessed by only 2 out of 3 members of his interview board.

As this is a complaint of discrimination under the Employment Equality acts I noted that the Complainant had not confirmed in his original submission which of the 9 grounds applied to his complaint. I also noted that the WRC had written to the Complainant seeking clarification as to which ground his discrimination claim was under and that he responded to say that “I cannot tick any of the 9 boxes as none of these apply”.  He went on to clarify that “in the interview and decision-making process” the Respondent “did not practice equal opportunities”.   In these circumstances, I again queried this matter with the Complainant at the hearing. I advised him that he needed to identify one of the nine grounds in order to make a complaint under the Employment Equality Act. He again confirmed that he could not identify one of the nine grounds for his claim of discrimination and again referred to the lack of equal opportunity in the interview and decision-making process.

Section 6 (1) of the Act states that “For the purpose of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”), one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated.”

Notwithstanding my concerns regarding the interview procedures, in the absence of the Complainant confirming a discriminatory ground within the meaning of the Act I find that he cannot maintain a claim under the Act.

CA-00031272-001 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have found that the Complainant does not have “locus standi” to maintain this claim therefore it is my decision that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00031272-002 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have found that the Complainant does not have “locus standi” to maintain this claim therefore it is my decision that the complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00031272-03 Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I have found that the Complainant is not an employee of the Respondent and that the Respondent had no role in the decision to terminate the employment of the Complainant, therefore it is my decision that the complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00031272-04 Complaint under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have found that the Complainant is not an employee of the Respondent and that, as such, the Respondent had no responsibility under the act for provision of contractual documentation or clarification. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00031272-05 Complaint under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have found that the Complainant does not have cover of the act and that I do not have jurisdiction to consider this claim. Therefore, it is my decision that the complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00031272-06 Complaint under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

I have found that the Complainant did not specify one of the discriminatory grounds upon which to base his claim and so cannot maintain a claim under the Act. Therefore, it is my decision that the complaint is not well founded.

Terms of employment, unfair dismissal, Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work), Protection of Employees (Agency Work), Employment Equality, CE Scheme