ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027208
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An office administrator | A recruitment agency |
Representatives | Self | Muireann McEnery IBEC |
Complaint(s):
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-00034689-001 | 17/02/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/03/2021 by remote hearing
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
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.
This matter was heard by way of 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.
Background:
This case related to the ending of the Complainant's employment.
She confirmed that she was employed through the recruitment agency with a named waste collection business. She was employed on a six-month contract. Her employment ended on 20 January 2020. On the Complaint Referral Form which was submitted to the WRC in relation to this matter, the Complainant identified the recruitment agency as the Respondent /Employer. The Complainant made one complaint only that of unfair dismissal. The Complainant also confirmed that she had also in error claimed that she was dismissed for exercising her rights under the Protected Disclosure Act. She confirmed that she didn't know anything about a protected disclosure and did not know what it meant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence as to how she was placed by the recruitment agency with a waste collection business. She outlined the events which gave rise to her transfer from one office of the waste collection business to another office. She was advised by the recruitment agency that the waste collection business had no further work for her. She was very shocked with this as she had not been told this by her manager in the waste collection business. She was very stressed and couldn't understand why she was treated in this way. The recruitment agency was advertising two permanent positions for the waste collection business at the time of her dismissal. The way she was treated did not make sense to her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The representatives acting on behalf of the recruitment agency submitted that the Complainant had named the incorrect legal entity as the Employer/Respondent to these proceedings. She submitted that the proceedings should be dismissed as the Complainant should have named the end user / the waste collection business as her employer for the purposes of an unfair dismissal complaint pursuant to Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993. Further, the Complainant did not have the requisite service to bring a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 in a situation where the Complainant herself acknowledged that she had not made at protected disclosure. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The first issue that I must decide is whether the Complainant has named the correct Employer/Respondent in the proceedings. It was not in dispute between the parties that the Complainant named the recruitment agency as her Employer/Respondent in the proceedings. Neither was it in dispute that the Complainant did not have the requisite service to bring a claim of unfair dismissal as she had not made a protected disclosure. Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993 sets out: 13. Employment Agencies Where, whether before, on or after the commencement of this Act, an individual agrees with another person, who is carrying on the business of an employment agency within the meaning of the Employment Agency Act 1971, and is acting in the course of that business, to do or perform personally any work or service for a third person (whether or not the third person is a party to the contract and whether or not the third person pays the wages or salary of the individual in respect of the work or service), then, for the purposes of the Principal Act, as respects a dismissal occurring after such commencement– (a) the individual shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the third person under a contract of employment, (b) if the contract was made before such commencement, it shall be deemed to have been made upon such commencement, and (c) any redress under the Principal Act for unfair dismissal of the individual under the contract shall be awarded against the third person. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant has incorrectly named the recruitment agency rather than the end user / waste collection business in these proceedings. Accordingly, I find that I do not have any jurisdiction to enquire into the complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Acts against the recruitment agency. |
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 complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 14th June 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993 |