ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00045570
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Remigwus Gabertas | Uber Ireland |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 | CA-00056350-001 | 26/04/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant is a self-employed taxi driver who used the Respondent app, amongst others.
In April 2023 he filed a complaint with the WRC relating to the Respondent’s app removing his access suddenly and without any fair process.
A hearing was held on the 3rd of November. The Complainant attended. The Respondent failed to attend. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked through the Respondent’s app for some 3 and a half years completed over 1700 trips. He had an extremely high rating and positive customer feedback throughout this time. In August and December 2022 two different customers submitted complaints against the Complainant. One wanted the Complainant to take an illegal turn to shorten their journey and the other had persisted in eating in the Complainant’s car. The Complainant was polite and respectful at all times in dealing with these customers but had to maintain the rules. Rather than investigate the matter and ask the Complainant for his side of the story the Respondent simply blocked his access to the app. There was no route to appeal this decision and no ability to engage with any member of the Respondent’s staff. The Complainant suffered financially and was frustrated by the Respondent’s lack of engagement and respect. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that they were notified of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The process the Respondent followed, as described by the Complainant, is obviously unreasonable and unfair. As a self employed worker the Complainant’s livelihood is vulnerable to the actions of the Respondent, who have seemed to have done substantial business with the Complainant over a three and a half year period. I can understand why he is aggrieved. The Complainant has submitted a complaint under the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work ) Act. This act protects agency workers who are defined as an individual employed by an employment agency under a contract of employment by virtue of which the individual may be assigned to work for, and under the direction and supervision of, a person other than the employment agency; My jurisdiction is limited to the legislation. On the Complainant’s own evidence he clearly does not come within the scope of this act. The complaint must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 06/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|