ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053290

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Balint Nogrady	Locumlink Limited /Locumlink Associates

Representatives

Mikaela McSkean of Sherwin O'Riordan Solicitors LLP

Did not participate.

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00065255-001	07/08/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065255-002	07/08/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearings: 10/01/2025 & 13/05/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 following the referral of the complains 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.

In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.

The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.

The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties but not deemed necessary.

The second Hearing listed was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Background:

The main issue in contention was the alleged Unfair Dismissal of the Complainant, a Health Care Assistant, by the Respondent Health Staffing Agency. The Employment began on the 16th March 2021 and ended on the 20th June 2024.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €950 Gross per week for a 48-hour week. A related Employment Information Act, 1994 complaint was also lodged.

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was represented by Solicitor, Ms Mc Skean from Sherwin O’ Riordan Solicitors. He gave an oral testimony and relied on a substantial Written Submission.

1:1 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – CA -00065255-001

In essence his testimony was that a following an assault incident with a Patient in St James Hospital on the 30th April 2024 he required medical attention. On the 20th June 2024, the Booking Agent, Ms A, in the Respondent informed him by telephone that arising from another alleged incident in the National Rehabilitation Hospital in Dun Laoghaire on the 19th June 2024 the Agency could no longer “Book” him for Shifts. Another incident (27th April 2024) in Tallaght University Hospital was also mentioned by the Agency – Tallaght Hospital now stated that they did not want him to be rostered for their Hospital.

The Agent, Ms A, confirmed that arising from these incidents, he was “off” their Agency books- effectively dismissed. He was not afforded any Procedures or Appeals in complete breach of all employment Law.

Later in the Year (November 2024) he was offered shifts in Tallaght Hospital by another Agency, but these were cancelled as the Hospital indicated that they did not wish him to be working there.

In overall summary the Complainant alleged that he had been summarily dismissed by the Respondent without any procedure or proper HR practices.

1:2 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00065255-002

The Complainant alleged that he had never received any Contract of Employment or Statement of Terms and Conditions from the Respondent.

As the Respondent did not attend the Hearings and no evidence offered the sworn testimony of the Complainant had to be given due weight.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend either Hearing. Numerous invitations to meetings were issued as was a request for commentary on Legal points dated the 9th April 2025.

A special final notice , by registered mail, was sent to the Company Secretary/Principal of the Respondents on the 21st of July 2025. Regrettably no reply was received at the WRC by the deadline of the 7th August 2025.

The Adjudication was satisfied that proper notice had been served of the date, time and place of the Hearings.

The Adjudication focused on the Legal Points involved even if there was no Respondent evidence or presentation.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

3:1 Legal Issues

3:1:1 CA-00065255-001 Unfair Dismissal complaint.

Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act,1993 states as set out below.

	Employment agencies.	*13.*—Where, whether before, on or after the commencement of this Act, an individual agrees with another person, who is carrying on the business of an employment agency within the meaning of the Employment Agency Act, 1971 , and is acting in the course of that business, to do or perform personally any work or service for a third person (whether or not the third person is a party to the contract and whether or not the third person pays the wages or salary of the individual in respect of the work or service), then, for the purposes of the Principal Act, as respects a dismissal occurring after such commencement—
		(a) the individual shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the third person under a contract of employment,
		(b) if the contract was made before such commencement, it shall be deemed to have been made upon such commencement, and
		(c) any redress under the Principal Act for unfair dismissal of the individual under the contract shall be awarded against the third person.

Accordingly, it has to follow that as the Named Employer was a Registered Employment Agency (Registered No EA2362) liability for the Unfair Dismissal normally rests with the End user -in this case the various Hospitals where the Complainant was employed. This point is reinforced by the Taxation Records supplied by the Complainant – which clearly indicated that he was paid by the various contract Agencies as well as via The Payment Bureau, an associated Respondent Company at the same business address.

Details were not supplied on the Continuity of Employment in any of the Hospitals sufficient as to establish the service qualification on 12 months set out in the 1977 Act. However, it would appear from the Taxation records that he did not have continuity in one Hospital but varied between several. However, the records indicate that some €59,000 were earned in Year 2023 via the Payment Bureau Ltd, the associated Respondent Payment Bureau but across various Hospitals.

The Complainant Legal Advisors -Sherwin O’Riordan argued that the effective Employer was the Agency as they were the “focus of control”. They set the hours, agreed the rate of Pay and performed general administration including payments via the associated Respondent Company. The Complainant relied upon PTD042 Diageo v Rooney of January 2004 to sustain the case that the Agency was the ultimate Employer.

However, in the case under consideration here there was no contract of employment, or it appeared, any contract of any description, between the Agency and the Complainant. It appeared quite Ad Hoc -the Complainant made himself available and the Agency would place him in any one of a number of Hospitals.

ADJ-00047789 Resende v TSA Consultants and ADJ- 00045721 Ciocol V Northway Personnel Ltd were considered in this context. Neither case found in the respective Complainant’s favour as regards an Unfair Dismissals Claim.

However, as the Respondent did not attend and no evidence was presented. The sworn Testimony of the Complainant, which went uncontested, has to carry overruling weight.

The claim for Unfair Dismissal against them as the named Respondent has to succeed on this Technical basis.

3:1:2 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00065255-002

As no rebuttal evidence or any evidence at all was presented the Sworn testimony of the Complainant has to carry weight.

4: Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015; Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.

4:1 CA-00065255-001 Unfair Dismissal complaint.

As set out above a Technical Unfair Dismissal from the named Respondent did take place.

Under Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissal Act,1977 a Redress award has to be “Just and equitable taking into account all the circumstances”.

A Redress award of €25,000 is awarded. This being approximately one-half years renumeration.

4:2 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00065255-002

This complaint is deemed, on the basis of the Sworn Complainant evidence to be Well Founded.

An Award of €300 is made in favour of the Complainant.

Dated: 19-08-2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words:

Unfair Dismissal, Terms of Employment Information.