ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00038116
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Christy O'Toole | Enfer Labs ULC |
Representatives | In person | J W O'Donovan LLP |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00049618-002 | 05/04/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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.
Background:
The complainant was employed by an employment agency and was placed with the respondent from 31st January 2022 until 10th February 2022. The complaint relates to an alleged discriminatory dismissal on the gender ground. |
The Correct Respondent.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In response to post hearing queries relating to his employment, the complainant confirmed that he was employed by an employment agency and that the employment agency discharged his salary payments to him. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent also addressed the issue of the complainant’s employment in post hearing correspondence. The respondent stated that the complainant’s contract of employment was with the employment agency and that the complainant was paid by the employment agency. The respondent further stated that for the purposes of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, the employer of the complainant is the employment agency and not the respondent to this complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The issue of which entity employed the complainant was addressed in post hearing correspondence from both parties. It is not disputed that the complainant was an agency worker on the basis that he was employed by an employment agency and was paid by the employment agency. Section 2(3)(c) of the Act provides that: in relation to an agency worker, the person who is liable for the pay of the agency worker shall be deemed to be the employer. In the particular circumstances of this complaint, the complainant was not dismissed by the respondent. The complainant ceased to be placed with the respondent by the employment agency after 10th February 2022 when the respondent ceased to use agency workers from that time and moved towards direct hires instead. On the basis that the complainant has named the end user as the respondent to his complaint as opposed to his employer, the employment agency, I find that in accordance with Section 77(A) 1 of the Employment Equality Act 1998, the complaint as submitted is misconceived. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the complaint is misconceived and is therefore, not well founded. |
Dated: 2nd August 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Misconceived |