FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 PARTIES : METROPOLITAN FILM PRODUCTIONS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - JOHN ARKINS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH FILM WORKERS ASSOCIATION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00025788, CA-00032858-001. The Complainant told the Court that he has had a working relationship with the Respondent company for over twenty years. He referred to frequent meetings that he had in his capacity as Shop Steward with a director of the Respondent – Mr Flynn – in relation to a succession of productions undertaken by the company over that period. The Complainant said that the purpose of those meetings was to discuss the manning levels required for the job. It was also the Complainant’s evidence that he engaged from time to time in negotiations both with Mr Flynn and another director, Mr O’Sullivan, for example in 2011 when the Respondent sought to reduce pay rates by 12.5%. According to the Complainant, his regular meetings with Mr Flynn continued up until approximately April 2019 at which time he recalls that Mr Flynn advised him that he was unwell and would not be around for some time. Therefore, when a new production was due to begin in December 2019, the Complainant made contact with a brother of Mr Flynn who in turn referred him to Ms Analise O’Callaghan. He learned from Ms O’Callaghan, he says, that manning levels for the upcoming job had not yet been decided. This was not consistent with what the Complainant understood to be the case i.e. that a number of his former colleagues had already been engaged to work on this production. He says that he also learned that Mr Flynn had returned to work and was also involved in the production. The Court was referred to what purported to be a written specified purpose contract of employment between the Complainant and Badlands Three TV Productions DAC that indicated a start date of 26 June 2017. The Complainant’s name appears in handwriting in four locations in this document. However, he told the Court that he did not sign the document and he had referred the matter for investigation to An Garda S?ochána for alleged forgery. According to the witness, An Garda S?ochána had confirmed to him that the ‘signatures’ on the document were not his and had been forged. Under cross-examination, the Complainant denies that he ever received a copy of the aforementioned document. He did confirm, however, that he worked on the production of Season Three of Badlands and was paid by bank transfer in accordance with the hourly rate of pay specified in the document (€35.77). According to the Complainant he did receive a remittance slip confirming his pay details in respect of each pay period but those remittance slips did not make reference to an employer. Complainant’s Submission The Complainant’s case is that he was continuously employed by the Respondent until his dismissal on 5 December 2019. He referred his complaint of unfair dismissal under the Act to the Workplace Relations Commission on 11 December 2019. The Respondent’s Submission The Respondent denies that the Complainant was ever employed by it. It submits that he was employed by Badlands Three TV Productions DAC between 3 July 2017 and 31 August 2018 under a specified purpose contract. The Respondent further submits that the Complainant’s claim under the Act, had it been referred against Badlands Three TV Productions DAC on 11 December 2019, would have been out of time. Discussion and Decision There is no documentary evidence before the Court that corroborates the Complainant’s claim made in oral evidence that he was an employee of the Respondent at all material times up until 5 December 2019, or at all. The evidence that was before the Court – in the form of a written contract– indicates that the Complainant was employed by a separate legal entity - Badlands Three TV Productions DAC- on a specified purpose contract that commenced on 26 July 2017. In direct evidence and under cross-examination, the Complainant confirmed that he was engaged from that date on the associated production and remunerated in accordance with the terms the said specified purpose contract although he denies that that signatures that appear on the copy before the Court are his. It is common case that the Complainant ceased working under that specified purpose contract on 27 April 2018. It follows that the Complainant has not established that Respondent impleaded in the within proceedings is the correct Respondent. It is not, therefore, necessary for the Court to determine the issue of whether or not the Complainant’s originating complainant was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission within the statutorily permitted timeframe for so doing. The appeal accordingly fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied for the reasons set out above. The Court so decides.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ian Kelly, Court Secretary. |
