ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050261
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Pipefitter | An Employment Agency |
Representatives | N/A | Warren Parkes, Warren Parkes Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00061297-001 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00061297-002 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18A of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00061297-003 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00061297-004 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 | CA-00061297-005 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00061297-006 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00061297-007 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00061297-008 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00061297-009 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00061297-010 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00061297-011 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00061297-014 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00061297-015 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00061297-016 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00061297-017 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 | CA-00061297-018 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Part 14 Section 103(55M) of the Health Act, 2007 | CA-00061297-019 | 23/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 | CA-00061297-020 | 23/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/06/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The Complainant attended the hearing on his own. I asked him if he had provided any submissions and he stated that he had furnished these to the WRC by hand several days previously. I then asserted that I had not received these submissions. He stated that the WRC reception desk had provided him with a receipt confirming that these submissions had in fact been delivered. When I asked him for a copy of this receipt, he stated that he did not have it with him and that he had it at home. I then explained to him that given the number of complaints involved, I would have to adjourn the matter and await submissions from him, prior to arranging a further hearing.
He explained, however, that he had already provided significant documentation and did not want to adjourn the hearing, stating that I could proceed by relying on the information he had submitted. I informed him that I had reviewed all of the documentation but could not determine which complaints it related to, if any. He insisted that it was my responsibility to figure this out. I reminded him that, as these were his complaints, it was his responsibility to present relevant evidence for each one. I then reiterated my willingness to adjourn the matter to allow him time to submit the necessary evidence for each complaint.
He once again stated that he did not want to adjourn the matter and insisted that the hearing be recorded. I informed him that the recording of the hearings was not allowed and he stated that he would contact the Taoiseach’s office in relation to this.
I informed him once again that I was willing to adjourn the matter if he could not present relevant evidence for his complaints. I then specified each complaint before me and asked what evidence he could provide for each one. When he stated that he did not know what evidence to present, I reiterated for the final time that I was willing to adjourn the matter to allow him to submit the necessary evidence for each complaint.
As he once again refused the opportunity to adjourn, I explained to him that I would have to issue a decision in respect of all of his complaints without any relevant evidence having been heard by me in relation to each one. He said that this was fine by him and the hearing then ended.
This matter was heard in conjunction with IR - SC - 00002173 and IR - SC – 00002174. As these concerned industrial relations disputes, which must be heard in private, I have anonymised the names of the parties to these complaints.
Background:
The Complainant commenced his employment as a Pipefitter with the Respondent on 20 March 2023. He made several complaints in relation to his employment under different pieces of legislation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not present any relevant evidence in relation to any of his complaints. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As the Complainant did not present any relevant evidence in relation to any of his complaints, the Respondent did not present any evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00061297-001 - CA-00061297-011: As the Complainant did not present any relevant evidence in relation to his complaints, I find that they are all not well founded. CA-00061297-014 - CA-00061297-015: As the Complainant did not present any relevant evidence in relation to his complaints, I find that he did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. CA-00061297-016 - CA-00061297-020: As the Complainant did not present any relevant evidence in relation to his complaints, I find that they are all not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
CA-00061297-001 - CA-00061297-011 (inclusive): I find that the complaints are not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00061297-014 - CA-00061297-015: I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against for the reasons set out above. CA-00061297-016 - CA-00061297-020 (inclusive): I find that the complaints are not well founded for the reasons set out above. |
Dated: 26th July 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|