ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047317
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Noel McInerney | Frs Recruitment Cavan |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Muireann McEnery IBEC |
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-00058377-001 | 18/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 and three witnesses for the employer undertook to give evidence under affirmation. A preliminary matter was raised regarding the correct respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
As a preliminary matter, the complainant submitted that he did not know who his employer was as he was recruited through the respondent to work on a third-party site. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As a preliminary matter the employer submitted that although it accepted that the complainant was its employee, it was not the named respondent, and the case herein has been taken against the wrong respondent. It was submitted by the witnesses that the respondent named in this complaint is not the complainant's employer. The employer indicated that at all times it was his employer and that his wage slips were issued in the name of his employer. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant was in possession of wage slips which indicated the name of his employer. This name was a different entity to that which was named by the complainant's respondent in this case. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the employer is the entity named the pay slips and is not the respondent in this case. Arising from the foregoing I find that this case is not well founded in that the correct respondent has not been named. |
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.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that this case is not well founded. |
Dated: 11th of December 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Temporary agency work – wrong respondent named – not well founded. |