Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Office Administrator

Regional newspaper

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-00028470-001

17/05/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00028470-002

17/05/2019

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

CA-00028470-003

17/05/2019

The Complainant's employment ended on the 5 April 2019. She lodged her complaints on 17 May 2019. The hearing of her complaints opened on 9 January 2020 and was a face to face hearing.  The hearing was adjourned and re-commenced by remote hearing on 6 May 2021.

This hearing took place partly by remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Respondent's solicitor attended at the hearing and filed submissions. Its case was that the Complainant had named the wrong employer in her complaint form and that the Complainant’s employer was a subsidiary of the Respondent (hereinafter called “the Respondent’s Subsidiary”).  This was a separate legal entity to the Respondent.  

No application was made by the Complainant to substitute the name of the Respondent’s subsidiary for the name listed as Respondent in this case.

The Complainant proceeded on the basis that the Respondent was the correctly named employer. 

The Complainant's case is that she commenced employment with the regional newspaper on 2 January 1997. At that time the newspaper was owned by a named individual.

Between that time and 2005 the newspaper was sold by several entities. In 2005 the Complainant was employed by a named limited liability company.

In April 2014 there was another change in ownership for the newspaper and the Complainant submitted that the Respondent became her employer.

The Complainant worked a three-day week and was paid €565.62 per week.

She explained that she was never provided with a contract of employment nor a staff handbook.

The Complainant was advised that her position could be made redundant in January 2019. She was asked for her submissions in the redundancy process as selection hadn't taken place. She made submissions as to why she should not be chosen to be made redundant.

At a meeting in February 2019 the Complainant was advised that her position was being made redundant.  No possible alternatives were considered.  She was not offered an opportunity to appeal the decision.

The Complainant received a redundancy payment of €32,455.00.

The Respondent explained the legal background to the transfer of the Complainant's employment from 2005 to 2014.

It submitted that it was not the employer of the Complainant.

It explained that Respondent acquired the shareholding of the Complainant's employer in 2014.  The acquisition of the shares did not trigger a Transfer of Undertakings or change of employer.

It pointed out that the Complainant became aware of her error in the name of her employer around the 30th September 2019.  She had until the 4th October 2019 to file her complaint against her employer within the requirements of Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. 

The Complainant was a member of the Respondent’s Subsidiary pension scheme and a policy overview document was provided to me which named the Pension scheme as the Respondent’s Subsidiary “Group Pension Scheme” and the Policy Owner as the Respondent’s Subsidiary.  The email address for the Complainant was that of her personal email and not her work email. 

The Respondent relied on the Labour Court decision of Travelodge Management Limited v Sylwia Wach [2015] ILCR Determination No. EDA 1511.

The documentary evidence provided to me included four P60s. Three P60’s were in the name of the Respondent’s Subsidiary.

The Employers PAYE registered number was the same for all P60s. 

The Complainant provided one payslip in the name of the Respondent's name. 

The name of the Complainant’s employer on the pension summary document was very clear.  The Complainant gave evidence that this pension was encashed in December 2019.

It is quite common for a business to have a different legal name from its trading name. The evidence provided to me by both parties was that the Complainant was aware of the various transfers of the business over the period of her employment.

At the time of the termination of the Complainant's employment she was in possession of a number of documents that identified the Respondents subsidiary as her employer.

The Complainant lodged her complaint on 17 May 2019 against the Respondent. She later lodged another complaint under ADJ–00026638 against the Respondent's subsidiary.  No application was made by the Complainant’s legal representatives to substitute the Respondents subsidiary as employer in this case.

While I appreciate that was confusing for the Complainant and very sloppy on the part of the Complainant's employer to have different names on different documents, the Complainant had within her possession documentary evidence that would have led her to ascertain the correct name of her Employer had she done so at the time.

I find that the Complainant was never employed by the Respondent. 

The Respondent named in this complaint is not the Complainant's employer. I have no jurisdiction to hear this complaint.  This complaint is not well founded.

Correct name of Respondent