Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Azzeddine Djellal

Motor Distributors Limited  

Representatives

  Not represented

 Not represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00036664-001

15/06/2020

Using a well-known jobs portal, the complainant applied for a job as a French- and English-speaking representative in the customer service centre of a luxury car brand.  The customer service centre is based in the Netherlands, but the job was based in Dublin.  While he did not produce a copy of the job application form, the complainant said that he was required to state his age on the form.  In the correspondence that he submitted in evidence between him and the hiring company, this fact is not disputed.

On June 8th 2020, the complainant received an email from a recruiter in the customer service centre, informing him that his application was unsuccessful.  In the email, the recruiter stated:

“After careful consideration, we must unfortunately inform you that we did not select you as our preferred candidate.

“The selection process was highly competitive.  We have decided to move forward with a candidate whose profile better meets our requirements.

“We wish you the best of luck with your job search.”

The complainant replied to the recruiter and suggested that the fact that he was asked to state his age on the application form may have been the reason he was not selected.  The following day, he received an email from another member of the recruitment team, setting out the reasons that he wasn’t selected.  Addressing the issue of age, the recruiter said,”

“However, according to our database, your date of birth would be 30-11-1983.  We’re not selecting on age , and as a consequence we’ve several helpdesk representatives who are around 15 years younger and 20 years older than you…”

The complainant was not satisfied with this response and he submitted this complaint to the WRC.  In his search for the address of the company in Ireland, he said that he was given the name of the respondent against whom he submitted this complaint.  The respondent is an Irish family-owned company, involved in the sale and distribution of the same luxury car brand that has a customer service centre in the Netherlands.  The respondent’s case is that it is an entirely separate company, with no connection to the customer service business.

The first issue for consideration therefore is, has this complaint been submitted against the correct respondent?

On June 8th 2020, in response to his suggestion that he was refused a job because of his age, the complainant received an email from a recruiter in the customer service centre in the Netherlands.  The email signature provides the full name and address of the company.  In his evidence, the complainant said that he phoned the recruiter and asked where their office was in Dublin, and that he was given the respondent’s name and address.  He submitted this complaint on June 15th 2020, six days after the email with the explanation about why he was not selected for a role.  While he named the recruiter on the complaint form, he gave the name and address of the prospective employer as the respondent’s name and address.

On October 6th 2020, on receipt of correspondence from the WRC regarding this claim, the respondent’s company secretary wrote to say that they were not the prospective employer.  The company secretary said that they were a separate and independent Irish company, and not associated with the company to which the complainant submitted a job application.

On March 30th 2021, the parties were invited to a hearing.  The correspondence from the WRC was sent to the named recruiter at the respondent’s address.

On April 29th, the respondent’s company secretary wrote again to the WRC, setting out the facts concerning the role of her company in relation to the car brand and its separateness from the customer service centre in the Netherlands.  In her letter, the company secretary said that the respondent is an independent contractor and not a general or special agent, joint partner or employee of the car brand or any group or company associated with the brand.  She attached a letter from the managing director and the chief financial officer of the customer service centre to confirm this.  In their letter, they said that their company is, “… a company with limited liability under Dutch law, having its official seat in Maastricht, the Netherlands and its place of business …in the Netherlands.”  They said that their company has “full control of the recruitment process and (name of the respondent) has no involvement in this process.”

From the email correspondence sent by the recruiter on June 8th 2020, the name and address of the company where the complainant applied for a job is clear.  This is not the name and address of the respondent in this complaint.  The correspondence from the managing director and the chief financial officer of the customer service centre confirms this fact.

It is clear to me that, if the complainant was informed that the respondent is the same company as the Dutch customer service centre, he was misinformed.  I am satisfied that the two are entirely separate and that, apart from a contract to distribute cars, the respondent has no connection to the company to which the complainant submitted a job application.

I have decided that this complaint is misconceived and that I have no jurisdiction to investigate further.

Respondent incorrectly named