MN/23/25
DECISION NO. MND243 |
SECTION 44, WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
PARTIES:
(REPRESENTED BY MR. HUGH MCDOWELL B.L. INSTRUCTED BY IBEC)
AND
JOHN ARKINS
(REPRESENTED BY MS. LIZ MURRAY)
DIVISION:
| Chairman: | Ms O'Donnell |
| Employer Member: | Mr O'Brien |
| Worker Member: | Mr Bell |
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00020849 (CA-00027474-002).
BACKGROUND:
The Worker appealed the decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005. A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 4 April 2024.
The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
This is an appeal by John Arkins (hereafter the Complainant) against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ00020849 CA-00027474-002 in a claim that he was not paid his legal entitlements under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973-2015 (the Act) by his former employer, Element Pictures Limited (hereafter the Respondent). The Adjudication Officer held that the Complainant was not an employee and therefore his complaint failed.
Background
The Complainant alleges he was dismissed by the Respondent without notice when he was not offered a job on the 1st April 2019. The fact of dismissal is in dispute, so it is for the Complainant in the first instance to establish that a dismissal took place. The Respondent denies the Complainant ever worked for them. This case is linked to UD/23/102. A question arose as to the name of the company that the complaint was against. After taking instruction the Complainants representative confirmed to the Court that the complaint was against Element Pictures Limited. The Court engaged with the parties around the possibility of addressing whether or not Respondent in this case was the correct Respondent as a preliminary issue. However, the representative for the Complainant informed the Court that her client wished to give evidence to the Court and for the full case to be heard. The Court proceeded to hear the full case including all witness evidence.
As the Court has determined in linked case UD/23/102 that the Complainant was not employed by the Respondent this complaint must fail.
Determination
The Court determines that the complaint is not well founded.
The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
The Court so Determines.
 | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court |
| |
| Louise O'Donnell |
| TH | ______________________ |
| 01 May 2024 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.