ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034707

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Shane Finnegan	JP Ryan Limited

Representatives

Hugh O’Donnell, BL

Stafford Management Consultancy Services

Complaints:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00045828-001 Duplicate of CA-00044259-001	25/08/2021
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00045828-002 Duplicate of CA-00045891-001	25/08/2021
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00045844-001 Duplicate of CA-00045891-002	26/08/2021
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00045851-001 Duplicate of CA-00044259-001	26/08/2021
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00045851-002 Duplicate of CA-00045891-001	26/08/2021

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/05/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015, these complaints were assigned to me by the Director General. A hearing opened remotely on August 30th 2021, and concluded at an in-person hearing on May 23rd 2022.

At the hearing, I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints. The complainant, Mr Shane Finnegan, was represented by Mr Hugh O’Donnell, BL, instructed by Ms Catherine Fee of Catherine Fee & Company, Solicitors. Ms Tara Murden from Ms Fee’s office attended on August 30th 2021, as did a former employee of the respondent, Mr Toma Martinou. JP Ryan Limited, was represented by Mr Ken Stafford, of Stafford Management Consultancy Services. The company’s managing director, Mr Noel Ryan, attended the hearing and gave evidence. A general manager, Mr Brian Gaughran and a transport manager, Mr Eoghan Whelan, attended the remote hearing on August 30th 2021. Mr Ryan and Mr Whelan attended again on May 23rd 2022.

Preliminary Issue: The Name of the Respondent

Mr Finnegan has submitted duplicate complaints against the respondent named here, JP Ryan Limited and against a subsidiary company, Darland Enterprises Limited. As a preliminary matter, for the purpose of identifying a respondent to these complaints, I am required to establish who Mr Finnegan’s employer was.

Confusion has arisen because of the practice of inter-changing the names of the respondent on various documents and letters issued to the complainant. For example, a terms of employment document issued in November 2014 states that the employer is Darland Enterprises. Safety training certificates are in the name of Darland and JP Ryan. Mr Stafford’s submission to the WRC is “on behalf of JP Ryan Limited,” although at the first day of the hearing, he confirmed that the name of the employer is Darland Enterprises Limited. The letter of dismissal issued to the complainant on March 10th 2021 is on the headed paper of JP Ryan Limited. In response to a letter from Ms Fee on September 9th 2021, Mr Stafford again confirmed that the name of the employer is Darland Enterprises Limited.

At the opening of the resumed hearing on May 23rd 2022, the managing director, Mr Ryan, said that Darland Enterprises Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JP Ryan Limited. Mr Finnegan was one of six employees of Darland Enterprises Limited. JP Ryan Limited has around 70 employees. Another subsidiary company is Tank Cleaning Services Limited, which also has six employees. All the training provided to the employees of the three companies is paid for by JP Ryan Limited. The complainant’s payroll and Revenue details show that he was an employee of Darland Enterprises Limited.

Based on the documents produced at the hearing, and the evidence of the managing director, Mr Ryan, I am satisfied that the complainant was employed by Darland Enterprises Limited and that no disadvantage arises for him because certain documents, particularly training certificates, were issued to him in the name of the parent company, JP Ryan Limited. I find that the respondent is Darland Enterprises Limited.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I have established that the name of the complainant’s former employer is Darland Enterprises Limited. The complainant has named the incorrect respondent on the complaint form associated with these complaints. Each of the complaints has been investigated against the correct respondent, Darland Enterprises Limited, and decisions have been issued under reference numbers ADJ-00033439 and ADJ-00034821.

Based on this finding, I decide that the complaints listed above against JP Ryan Limited are not well-founded.

Dated: 27-02-2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Key Words:

The complainant has named the wrong respondent.