Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Agency Worker

A health services provider

Representatives

Judy McNamara

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00043635-001

17/04/2021

The worker was employed by an employment agency and was placed by the agency with the hirer on 15 February 2021.  Her placement ended on 16 March 2021. The WRC received a complaint form from the worker on 17 April 2021.  The worker alleges that she was unfairly dismissed.  A hearing of the dispute took place remotely on 7 September 2022.

The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 3 November 2021 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 worker provided a written submission.

The worker submits that she was placed by a named employment agency with the hirer on 15 February 2021, to work in a clerical admin position. She says she was promised a number of months work to cover for employees who were out sick. She says a manager told her she would be there until Christmas.

The worker submits that an incident took between herself and another employee on 13 March 2021, some three weeks after she had commenced her placement. The incident was non-confrontational and non-violent. There was no foul language used. Three days after this incident, on 16 March 2021, the worker says she was confronted by her manager about the incident, who said the incident needed to be elevated to his manager.  Some 30 minutes later the worker was told to leave her workplace by a more senior manager. The worker was told that the incident would have to be investigated before she could return to work. The worker went to HR but she was not offered any advice.  The incident was never investigated.  She was told bluntly that my services were no longer needed.

The worker wonders why, if as stated by the hirer, that they did not need any more agency workers, is another person who came from the same agency still working with the hirer.

The worker submits that the hirer did not follow procedures for an investigation and ignored rules governing good practice.  She says the outcome has cost her dearly in regard to finances and her reputation.  

The hirer provided a written submission.

The hirer named on the Complaint Form denies that the worker is in fact an employee of theirs, rather she is an employee of a named employment agency.  The worker was placed by an agency with the hirer on a temporary basis.

The hirer submits that their employee, who had been on sick leave and for whom the worker had been assigned to cover, had in fact returned to work on 13 March 2021. The hirer provided several emails to support this assertion.

In addition, the hirer refers to a letter, 25 March 2021, from the employment agency which had placed the worker, confirming the worker was, “working on a temporary basis at [named location] on behalf of [named employment agency] however that vacancy that [name] was filling is no longer vacant, hence why her contract has now come to an end.”

Notwithstanding the above, the worker insisted that the hirer should investigate matters of concern which took place during her placement. A comprehensive review of matters was undertaken by the hirer.  The findings of this review, in summary, were that (i) the worker had not been treated unfairly (ii) she had not been dismissed but rather her assignment with the hirer had come to an end due to the return from sick leave of the person she was engaged to cover.  The review also noted that there was no evidence or documentation to support any claims of bullying.

In conclusion, the hirer submits that the within worker is not an employee of the hirer in the first instance, notwithstanding which the Respondent discharged its obligations to the worker while she was assigned to it. 

The termination of the assignment arose because of the return to work of an employee who returned to work and was not related to the alleged incident in the Break Room on 13 March 2021.

Accordingly, the employer submits that there is no basis for the assertions made by the worker.

From the submissions provided I find that the worker’s assignment was ended because of the return of the employee she had been assigned to cover for and no other reason.  The fact that there was an incident in the days before the assignment ended was purely coincidental.  In the circumstances, I recommend the worker accept that as the case and be assured that as such her reputation is unharmed.

I recommend that the worker accept her placement was ended as there was no further requirement for her services.

Agency worker, services.