CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 41 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00050273 issued on 18/04/2024 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050273
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Edwin Dordoe | Atlantis Medical |
Representatives | Self-represented | Majid Alborz, internal HR |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00061465-001 | 09/02/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant gave his evidence under oath. The respondent is a British based employment agency, and the complainant is a British resident. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant confirmed that he is a British resident and that he concluded his contract with a British employment agency under British law. He confirmed that the contract to carry out services was denominated in Sterling. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent is a British company and concluded their contract with the complainant in Britain. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant confirmed that under his contract, he provided four days of services to a private laboratory in Ireland, Eurofins Biomnis, for which he was not paid. He confirmed that the contract was concluded with the respondent, a British registered employment agency, in Britain under British law. He was due to be paid in Sterling. The respondent did not contest these basic facts. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this matter as it was concluded outside the jurisdiction and was governed by British law. |
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.
Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented to me, my decision is that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. |
Dated: 18/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – contract of employment concluded outside jurisdiction - lack of jurisdiction to hear complaint |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050273
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Edwin Dordoe | Atlantis Medical |
Representatives | Self-represented | Majid Alborz, internal HR |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00061465-001 | 09/02/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant gave his evidence under oath. The respondent is a British based employment agency and the complainant is a British resident. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant confirmed that he is a British resident and that he concluded his contract with a British employment agency under British law. He confirmed that the contract to carry out services was denominated in Sterling. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent is a British company and concluded their contract with the complainant in Britain. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant confirmed that under his contract, he provided four days of services to an Irish hospital for which he was not paid. He confirmed that the contract was concluded with the respondent, a British registered employment agency, in Britain under British law. He was due to be paid in Sterling. The respondent did not contest these basic facts. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this matter as it was concluded outside the jurisdiction, and was governed by British law. |
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.
Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented to me, my decision is that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. |
Dated: 18/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – contract of employment concluded outside jurisdiction - lack of jurisdiction to hear complaint |