ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050821
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Pawel Mazurek | A & G Couriers Limited trading as Fastway Couriers |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives |
| Joanne Lynn, Head of Operations and performance. Dawn Julian, Legal and Contracts Manager.
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00062179-001 | 13/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00062179-002 | 13/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00062179-003 | 13/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
Any complaint being made under the Employment Equality Acts concerning discrimination, victimisation, discriminatory dismissal, unequal remuneration etc., is brought before the Workplace Relations Commission following a referral by the Director General. In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 (as amended) a complaint has already been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who has in turn deemed it appropriate that the complaint be investigated with any appropriate and/or interested persons to be provided with an opportunity of being heard. In these circumstances and following a referral by the said Director General, of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I am an Adjudicator appointed for this purpose (and/or an Equality Officer so appointed).
In general terms, an Adjudication Officer cannot entertain a complaint presented after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Act states: -
“…a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”
In limited circumstances, a complaint presented outside the relevant period may be entertained if the failure to present was due to reasonable cause. This will not exceed a twelve-month period.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 77 of the 1998 Act (as amended). In particular the Complainant (as set out in his Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 13h of March 2024) seeks redress from the Respondent in circumstances where he claims his Employer behaved unlawfully and discriminated against him in the course of his employment wherein he says that he was treated less favourably than another person has or would have been treated in a comparable situation on the grounds of his Race (as detailed in Section 6 of the 1998 Act (as amended)).
The Operative Section is Section 6 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 where :-
Sub Section 6 (1) For the purpose of this Act…discrimination shall be taken to occur where…
- (a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) …...(the “discriminatory grounds”).
Section 6 (2) As between any 2 persons the discriminatory grounds .. are…
(h) That they are of a different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (..the ground of race”),
In the event that the Complainant’s claim is upheld, it is open to me to make an award of compensation for the effects of the acts of discrimination which have occurred and/or the victimisation experienced. It is also open to me to direct that a certain course of action be taken by an appropriate party which might eliminate such an occurrence in the future (per Section 82 of the 1998 Employment Equality Act).
In addition to the above, and in accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention - by an employer - of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 (or such other Act as might be referred to in the 2015 Act), made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can I am the Adjudicator so appointed.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in circumstances where a Contract of Service has commenced and where the said Employee employed by an Employer is entitled to have been provided (within two months of the commencement of the employee’s employment with the employer) with a Statement of certain Terms of the employment. The said terms are specified in Section 3 of the 1994 Act and include items such as names, addresses and place of work. There should also be a job title and a description of the nature of the work. The start date and the nature/duration of the Contract should be included in the statement as well as the terms of the remuneration. This statement should be dated and signed with copies retained by both parties.
The Act also provides that an employer must notify the Employee of any changes in the particulars already detailed in the Statement of Terms. This is set out in Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 which puts the onus on an employer to notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of change in any of the particulars of the statement as provided by the Employer. The obligation does not extend to a change occurring in provision of statutes and instruments made under statute.
This Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 implements an EU Directive and applies to all persons working under a Contract of Employment or apprenticeship (whether on a fulltime or part time basis). It includes persons working through an employment agency where the party remunerating is responsible for the provision of the said Statement of Terms.
Lastly, the Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is also an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral,it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:
A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a Complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.
Background:
This matter was to be heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party would have been prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way. Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 13th of March 2024 by way of a workplace relations complaint form. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant- in the person of his nominated Solicitor - was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 29th of May 2024 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form. The Complainant had also agreed when completing his complaint form, that correspondence should go through the nominated representative, whose email address was provided. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant sought to establish that he was discriminated against by the Respondent Company in the manner of his payment contrary to the Employment Equality Act, 1998. The Complainant brought additional complaints under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. I have received no further submission beyond what was outlined in the workplace relations complaint form. I understand that the Respondent intended defending the within complaint.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent had representation at this hearing. The Head of Operations and the Head of legal were both in attendance. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions in advance of the hearing. It is noted that the Respondent rejected it had acted in any way contrary to the Employment Equality Act, 1998. It is further noted that the Respondent was raising a preliminary issue concerning whether or not this was ever a Contract of Employment situation. The Respondent maintains that the Complainant purchased and operated a franchise option. The Contractual relationship was not one of Employer/Employee per the Respondent. The Respondent rejects that the Complainant has any entitlements under any of the Acts he has raised in his complaint form. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend and has provided no evidence in respect of any of the complaints made against the Respondent entity |
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.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00062179-001 – The Complainant was not discriminated against and the complaint fails as the complainant did not attend to make his case. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00062179-002 – The complaint herein is not well founded and fails. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of WagesAct, 1991 CA-00062179-003 The complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
|
Dated: 11/10/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|