ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034671
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Agency Worker | A Recruitment Agency |
Representatives |
| David Kearney HR Brief Limited |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 | CA-00045729-001 | 18/08/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker commenced employment with the employer in January 2020. The employer is a recruitment agency that places workers in jobs as Agency Workers. The worker is a HGV driver. He works approximately 40 hours per week and earns €800.00 per week. The Hirer in this instance is a building supplies company which directly employs a number of HGV drivers as well as some agency drivers. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker submits that he does not receive equal treatment in terms of basic working and employment conditions in the same way as applies to employees recruited directly by the Hirer to do the same or a similar job. In particular the worker believes that the direct HGV driver employees of the Hirer get: (i) Time and a half or double time for overtime - which he does not. (ii) A meal allowance – which he does not. (iii) A mobile phone allowance – which he does not. (iv) A significant bonus at Christmas – which he does not. The worker believes this is unfair and that his employer should do something to rectify the situation. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submits that no evidence has been adduced to support the worker’s assertions. In any case, it is the Hirer who sets the terms and conditions of employment. The employer has no peculiar knowledge of the terms and conditions that the Hirer’s direct employees enjoy, nor do they have the power to demand such information. The employer is willing to investigate the situation and if needs would be willing to discuss the matter with the Hirer. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012, is probably the more appropriate Act with which to deal with this situation, however the complaint was taken under the IR Act. I find an investigation into the alleged discrepancies between the terms and conditions of this worker and his directly employed counterparts should be undertaken by the employer, with a mind to equalising the situation if there is found to be an imbalance in the terms and conditions. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend the employer open a dialogue with the Hirer to find out if there are differences between the terms and conditions of direct employees and this worker with a view to regularising the situation. |
Dated: 28th July 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Agency worker, hirer, terms and conditions of employment. |