ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050080
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Patrick Martin | Frs Network |
Representatives | N/A | Keevagh Heverin Ibec Mid West & Kerry |
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-00061219-001 | 18/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 | CA-00061219-002 | 18/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, 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.
Specifically, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The Complainant attended the hearing along with the Respondent and their representative. The Complainant gave evidence and the opportunity for cross-examination was afforded.
Background:
The Complainant stated that he was an agency employee of the Respondent from November 2014 to July 2023 and that he worked entirely for their client Teagasc during this period. He asserted that his terms and conditions of employment were inferior to that of a full-time employee of Teagasc, which he alleged constituted a breach of the Act. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that he commenced working with the Respondent as a self-employed contractor in January 2010 to provide relief farm services for farms and farmers. In November 2014, he transferred from a contractor position to become an employee of the Respondent. Further to the transfer, he stated that he was an agency employee working for the Respondent’s client Teagasc and asserted that his terms and conditions of employment were inferior to that of a full-time employee of Teagasc. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
It was stated that the work carried out by the Complainant for Teagasc was done under the supervision and direction of the Respondent. His duties included general yard work, power washing, fencing and working with livestock. Given that he was working under the supervision of the Respondent, it was disputed that the Complainant was an agency employee during his period of employment. It was asserted therefore that the provisions of the Act do not apply. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Law Preliminary Matter The Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 applies the principle of equal treatment in terms of basic working and employment conditions for agency workers. The Act defines Agency Worker as “an individual employed by an employment agency under a contract of employment by virtue of which the individual may be assigned to work for, and under the direction and supervision of, a person other than the employment agency. Employment Agency is defined as “a person (including a temporary work agency) engaged in an economic activity who employs an individual under a contract of employment by virtue of which the individual may be assigned to work for and under the direction and supervision of, a person other than the first-mentioned person”. I note in the first instance the Respondent’s assertion that the Complainant was working under their supervision and direction and that this was not disputed by the Complainant. I further note that there is an Agreement in place between the Respondent and Teagasc, which the Respondent says is effectively a managed services contract and makes clear that they are responsible for the supervision of the FRS staff on the Teagasc contract. Specifically, the agreement states that the Respondent is responsible for; “The proper management of perceived disciplinary/conduct, capacity/ capability or performance/competence issues, including the conduct of performance management or disciplinary processes arising”.. Considering the foregoing, I find that the Respondent is not an employment agency in the context of this complaint and the Complainant is not an agency worker. I also find that the relationship between the Respondent and Teagasc is not agency – end-user but that of client and contractor. Accordingly, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Act. |
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.
CA-00061219-001: I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint for the reasons set out above. CA-00061219-002: This is a duplicate complaint |
Dated: 10-01-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|