ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028639

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Nigel Miller	Shannon Transport & Warehouse Company T/A STL Logistics

Representatives

Shonagh Byrne SIPTU

Muireann McEnery , Ibec

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00036407-001	08/05/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/04/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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.

The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties confirmed that they understood this and were agreeable that the hearing would proceed on that basis. It was also explained to the parties that where there is a serious conflict of evidence in the complaint before an Adjudication Officer that will require an adjournment of the hearing to await the amendment to the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 to grant Adjudication Officers the power to administer the oath and to provide a punishment for the giving of false evidence. Both parties confirmed their understanding of this point.

Background:

The complainant commenced employment as a warehouse operative in November 2017. He was recruited by a recruitment agency (Agency 1) and contracted by Company A who provide services to a company referred to as Company B. The contract was given to another recruitment agency, Agency 2, in October 2018. The complainant applied to them to so as to ensure that he would continue working on Company B’s site..

Following a workplace accident in March 2019 the complainant was out of work until July 2019. On his return he was told that there was no work for him on the Company B site. He was not provided with any more work by Agency 2 and he obtained alternative employment. He was sent his P45 by Agency 2 on 11/10/2019. His rate of pay was €13 per hour and we worked 40 hours per week.

The complainant also submitted a similar complaint against Company A and this was listed as ADJ-00028639. The second named respondent was not the complainant’s employer but was the company who provided logistical support to Company B.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant worked as a warehouse operative on “Company B”’s site in November 2017. He was recruited through a recruitment company (“Agency 1”) and contracted by “Company A”. The contract for “Company A” was given to another recruitment company (“Agency 2”) in October 2018 and the complainant was advised to apply through them if he wished to continue working on “Company B”’s site. In March 2019 the complainant had a serious workplace accident and he was out of work until July 2019. He did not receive any pay during this time. As he was medically certified to return to work he contacted with “Agency 2”. He was advised that he needed an induction, and this could take 3-7 weeks. After three weeks he made contact again with “Agency 2” seeking to return to work. He made further contact after about 7 weeks and was advised by “Agency 2” that there was no work available for him. No explanation was offered. As no alternative work was provided obtained alternative work in 2019. The complainant believes that “Agency 2” and “Company A” unreasonably and unfairly towards him. There was no engagement or contact made with him. He is claiming constructive dismissal and is seeking compensation for his loss of earnings.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent in this case is not the complainant’s employer. The respondent was joined in the case of ADJ-00026436

Findings and Conclusions:

The decision in the case of ADJ-00026436 is linked to this case.

Decision:

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.

This case is linked to ADJ-00026436.

The decision is that the complainant does not have the required service to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act and therefore the claim is not well founded.

Dated: July 9th 2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Preliminary matter. Service requirement.