Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Thomas  Kearney

SOLAS

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

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-00054456-001

15/11/2022

This complaint is a duplicate of one dealt with in ADJ-00043366 and should be read in conjunction with it.

The named Respondent believes it has been named incorrectly and that the complaint is misconceived.

SOLAS were named as a Respondent by the Complainant. SOLAS contends it should not be included as a Respondent in this case as it was neither the employer, nor associate employer engaged in the recruitment competition for the post the Complainant applied for and was not selected.

SOLAS refer to Section 2 of the Act, which states:

“employer,” subject to subsection (3), means, in relation to an employee, the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment;”

and

“For the purposes of this Act, two employers shall be taken to be associated if one is a body corporate of which the other (whether directly or indirectly) has control or if both are bodies corporate of which a third person (whether directly or indirectly) has control.”

Based on this definition SOLAS contends that the organisation has been mistakenly identified as a Respondent in this case, as it was neither employer nor associated employer in the recruitment competition.

SOLAS contends that Waterford and Wexford Education Training Board (WWETB) meets the definition of “employer” as defined by the Act, in relation to this recruitment competition. The Education and Training Boards Act 2013 (8) provides for the establishment of autonomous, independent education training boards, of which WWETB is one, with appropriate power to perform its functions, including the appointment and payment of employees.

SOLAS contends that the Complainant may have mistakenly assumed SOLAS was the employer or associate employer in relation to the carpentry and joinery instructor position and accordingly cited SOLAS as a Respondent in this case.

Ms Ruth Patten represented SOLAS at the hearing and gave evidence on affirmation.  She stated that SOLAs was not involved in the recruitment process for the job in question; SOLAS does not qualify as the employer in this instance.  SOLAS was never contacted by the Complainant in relation to this recruitment process.

The representative for WWETB stated that the Complainant had applied to the WWETB for the job and that SOLAS had nothing to do with the process and that the matter should be directly between the WWETB and the Complainant.

The Complainant gave evidence on Oath at the hearing.  In relation to the Preliminary Point, he stated that SOLAS and the WWETB are closely related as can be seen on the parties’ websites.

Having considered the arguments put forward by SOLAS I am satisfied that SOLAS is neither the employer nor an associated employer in relation to the position for which the Complainant applied. 

I find the naming of SOLAS as a Respondent is misconceived.

The Complaint against SOLAS is misconceived.

Employer, misconceived.