ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032031
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Aideen Nicholson | National Parernts Council Post Primary |
Representatives |
| Mai Fanning |
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-00042706-001 | 16/06/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/04/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Ramsey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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:
The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 and has submitted that she was not informed by the Respondent, to whom she was hired out as an agency worker, of a vacant position with the Respondent (CA-00042706-001) |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 17th September 2018. The Complainant was employed on contract through the First Staff Employment Agency as an administrative assistant and her gross pay was € 525 (€418.09 net) per week for 35 hours worked. The Complainant agreed in the course of her evidence that there was a general discussion about the expansion of the company but was not told about the new employee until a few days beforehand. Further, the demarcation document was not discussed or disclosed to staff before it was implemented, The Complainant submitted there is a difference between informal discussions regarding company expansion and officially informing agency workers of a vacant position for the purpose of enabling the agency worker to apply for that position. The Complainant accepted she did speak with an interview candidate but submitted that this does not lead to the conclusion that she knew that the Respondent had sought to hire somebody directly to a permanent role. The Complainant, in the course of her evidence, totally refuted that she was fully informed of the position prior to any candidate being sought and during the process to find a suitable candidate. The Complainant resigned her position with the Hirer on the 9th September 2020 stating that she that made this difficult decision following months without any constructive communication from the Respondent Directors who were tasked with overseeing the management of the office The Complainant took up alternative employment as a full time clerical worker in September 2020. These Complaints were received by the Workplace Relations Commission on the 16th June 2020. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The President and the Director of the Respondent attended. The Respondent submitted that In the growth phase of the company there was no vacancy as such. However, the requirement to address shortcomings in the areas of engagement, outreach and interaction with parents and school parent bodies was identified and the appointment of additional staff to cover this area was discussed amongst all in the company. In particular the sourcing and appointment of a ‘communication and outreach co-ordinator was pursued, primarily through the same agency with whom the complainant was registered. Further, prior to the initial search for the appointee, discussions took place with the staff already working for the Respondent at that time and also ahead of the appointment being made. Key duties and responsibilities were identified discussed and agreed with the two staff at the time and in line with the demarcation documents. The Respondent submitted that the complainant looked after callers and accordingly would have been aware of nearly all of the interviewees who attended. It is the Respondents position that the that the complainant was fully informed of the position prior to any candidate being sought and during the process to find a suitable candidate. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully listen to the evidence tendered and submissions made in the course of this hearing by both parties. Section 11 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 provides: A hirer shall, when informing his or her employees of any vacant position of employment with the hirer, also inform any agency worker for the time being assigned to work for the hirer of that vacant position for the purpose of enabling the agency worker to apply for that position. I am satisfied that the Respondent took it for granted that the complainant was aware of the vacant position and although the Complainant may have been aware that a number of individuals were attending for interviews she was not informed by the Respondent of the vacant position, as required by section 11 of the aforesaid act, and accordingly this complaint is well founded. |
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.
I find that the Complaint (CA-00042706-001) made pursuant to Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 is well founded and award the Complainant the sum of €500.00. |
Dated: 29-01-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Ramsey
Key Words:
|