FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY CLAIRE BRUTON BL, INSTRUCTED BY DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL LAW AGENT) - AND - MR CONOR WILLIAMSON (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00034320 CA-00045302-010 This is an appeal by Mr Conor Williamson (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00034320/CA-00045302-010, dated 4 June 2022) under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (‘the 1977 Act’). Notice of Appeal was received on 4 July 2022. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 1 December 2022 in conjunction with a number of related appeals bearing the following reference numbers: TU/22/9; TU/22/10; TU/22/11; PW/22/177; PW/22/178; WTC/22/167; MN/22/16; UD/22/89; RPA/22/17. Each of the Complainant’s appeals being advanced before the Court are predicated on his assertion that his employment transferred by operation of law from his former employer to Dublin City Council (‘the Respondent’) on 1 July 2021. The Adjudication Officer held that no such transfer had been established and that none of the claims were well-founded. The Factual Matrix The Complainant was employed as licensed dog warden by David Stone T/A Ashton Dog Pound and Warden Services (‘Ashton’) between July 2017 and 30 June 2021. Ashton provided dog warden and dog pound services up to 30 June 2021 under contract for Dublin City Council (‘the Respondent’) and other local authorities also. It is common case that the Complainant was employed by Ashton for the purposes of fulfilling its contract to provide dog warden services to the Respondent only. In March and April 2021, the Respondent conducted an expression of interest and tender process for the provision of dog warden services. No third party was appointed following those processes. The Respondent, therefore, decided to insource the provision of dog warden sources through its own animal welfare unit. In doing so, the Respondent took possession of five dogs and related documentation that had been in the care of Ashton along with official notice books and records. The Respondent did not take on any staff, including dog wardens, that had been employed by Ashton. Discussion and Decision The Court determined in TU/22/9, TU/22/10 and TU/22/11 that no transfer of undertakings within the meaning of the Regulations took place between Ashton and the Respondent. The Court finds, therefore, that the within claim under the 1977 Act is not well-founded and the appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary. |
