ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039465
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Patrick McGrath | Uber Ireland Technologies Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | MP Guinness BL instructed by Mason Hayes & Curran LLP |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00051704-001 | 09/06/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00051704-002 | 09/06/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00051704-003 | 09/06/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00051704-004 | 09/06/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00051704-005 | 09/06/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/04/2023, 11/01/2024, 6/03/2024, 7/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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.
At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the generic terms of ‘Complainant’ and ‘Respondent’ are used throughout the text and the Respondent’s employees are referred to by their job titles.
The parties were also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. All participants who gave evidence were sworn in. Both parties were offered the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. Much of the evidence was in dispute between the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
The Complainant was self-represented.
The Respondent as represented by Ms MP Guinness BL instructed by Ms Katie Doyle of Mason Hayes & Curran LLP.
Background:
On 9 September 2022, the Complainant referred these complainants to the Director General of the WRC against Uber Ireland Technologies Limited and identical claims against Uber Ireland Center of Excellence Limited (ADJ-00039464).
The Respondent raised a preliminary issue of the correct respondent. |
Preliminary matter - Correct Respondent
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At the adjudication hearing on 27 April 2023, the Complainant confirmed that he was employed by Uber Ireland Center of Excellence Limited. His contract and payslips showed Uber Ireland Center of Excellence Limited as the employer. However, he thought that some people involved in his case were working for Uber Ireland Technologies Limited and, therefore, he was not sure who was the correct Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
By letter dated 19 October 2022 and email dated 28 February 2023, the Respondent asserted that the appropriate Respondent in this case is Uber Ireland Centre of Excellence, the Complainant’s former employer. At the adjudication hearing on 27 April 2023, the Respondent reiterated that the Complainant was never employed by Uber Ireland Technologies Limited. |
Findings and Conclusions on preliminary matter:
On 9 September 2022, the Complainant referred to the Director General of the WRC his claims against Uber Ireland Center of Excellence Limited and identical claim against Uber Ireland Technologies Limited. At the adjudication hearing on 27 April 2023, the Complainant conceded that he was employed by Uber Ireland Center of Excellence Limited. He confirmed that his contract of employment showed Uber Ireland Center of Excellence Limited as his employer. I note that the Employment Agreement dated 18 July 2016 exhibited at the adjudication hearing stated Uber Ireland Center of Excellence as the employer. Based on the submissions of the parties and the evidence before me, I find that the Complainant was not employed by the Respondent named in this claim. Uber Ireland Technologies Limited is, therefore, not the correct respondent. |
Decision:
CA-00051704-001 - Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973
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.
I declare this complaint to be not well founded. |
Decision:
CA-00051704-002 - Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977
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 find this complaint to be not well founded. |
Decision:
CA-00051704-003 - section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
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.
I declare this complaint to be not well founded. |
Decision:
CA-00051704-004 - section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991
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.
I declare this complaint to be not well founded. |
Decision:
CA-00051704-005 - section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
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.
I declare this complaint to be not well founded. |
Dated: 06th of August 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
Incorrect respondent – preliminary matter |