PDD263

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00048629 (CA-00059613-001).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 27 January 2025.

Labour Court hearings took place on 19 May and 13 August 2026. 

The following is the Court's Decision:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Zhihua Yuan (“the Complainant”)against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer made under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”) in relation to a complaint about Gaffney Mechanical Limited (“the Respondent”).

The complaint under the 2014 Act was lodged to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 24 October 2023. The Adjudication Officer issued a decision on 5 November 2024 and held that the complaint was not well founded.

The Labour Court conducted a hearing into an appeal of that decision on 19 May 2026 and 13 August 2026. This case is linked to EDA2650, EPD261 and TED2619.

1. Preliminary Matter

The Respondent submits that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as (i) the incorrect Respondent has been impleaded by the Complainant, and (ii) without prejudice to that fact, any complaint under the Act is manifestly out of time.

Rule 34 of the Labour Court Rules provides that: -

“The Court may, in its discretion, give a preliminary ruling on any aspect of the case where it is satisfied that time and expense may be saved by the giving of such a ruling and/or where it has the potential to be determinative of the case”.

By agreement with the parties, the Court proposed that it would hear and decide the preliminary matter in the first instance. It advised the parties if it decided that the complaint was lodged to the WRC within time, a further hearing would be scheduled to consider the substantive appeal. If the Court decided that the complaint was lodged outside the time limits set down in the Act, the appeal would be out of time and statute barred.

The Court heard submissions from both parties on the preliminary matters arising. The Complainant was assisted with a Chinese language interpreter at the hearing.. The Complainant gave evidence under oath, as did Ms Gemma Sutton, payroll manager, on behalf of the Respondent.

2. Summary of the Respondent’s case – preliminary matters

In early 2022, the Respondent applied to the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment (“the Department”) – through a recruitment agency – for an employment permit to allow the Complainant and several other workers to legally work in the country as a plumber. The agency conducted all necessary paperwork. The Complainant’s employment was due to commence on 20 June 2022. He did not arrive in Ireland until 31 December 2022. Due to economic pressures, the company’s resourcing needs had changed by that time. As a result, the Respondent did not employ the Complainant.

The Respondent provided the recruitment agency with details of sub-contractors who might provide alternative work to the Complainant. The Respondent did not direct the Agency to secure work with another entity, as alleged. The Respondent did not engage with the Complainant, or any other workers, about alternative work options. The Respondent did not direct the Complainant to work illegally with another company, as alleged.

The Respondent did not enter a contractual relationship with the Complainant after he arrived in Ireland. The Complainant never became an employee of the Respondent company. He was never set up on payroll.  The Complainant is not entitled to advance his complaint under the Act. No breach of the Act occurred during the relevant statutory time limits, as no contractual relationship existed.

3. Summary of the Complainant’s case – preliminary matters

The Complainant was an employee of the Respondent company. A contract of employment was signed by both parties on 8 April 2022 citing a commencement date of 20 June 2022. An employment permit was granted on 9 September 2022. The name of the employer cited on his employment work permit is the Respondent company, Gaffney Mechanical Ltd.

The Complainant arrived in the country on 31 December 2022. The Respondent arranged, through an agent, for the Complainant to work for another named company. The Complainant commenced working for the other company on 21 February 2023. The complainant was dismissed from that employment by letter dated 17 May 2023.

The Complainant submits that he remained an employee of the Respondent company at the relevant time. The Respondent was the sole guarantor of the Complainant’s employment in Ireland. His contract of employment and employment permit confirms the Respondent company as the correct employer. The only way for a foreigner to legally work in the State is to obtain an employment permit and entrance visa, which are regulated by laws of the State. The Respondent was responsible for the Complainant’s employment with the other named company. The agent, acting on behalf of the Respondent, informed the Complainant that the other company was part of the same Respondent company. He never received a dismissal letter from the Respondent.

The Complainant lodged a complaint to WRC inspectorate against both entities. The WRC closed the file against the Respondent company. The Complainant only became aware of the change in his employment status on 20 September 2023 following further correspondence from the WRC. Therefore, the breach under the Act occurred on that date. The Respondent contravened the Act as the Complainant made a protected disclosure to the WRC on 29 August 2023 following which his employment permit was cancelled.

4. Deliberations

The Court must consider whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in circumstances where the Respondent contends (i) that it is not the correct Respondent in this case and (ii) no contravention of the Act has occurred during the relevant statutory time limits.

The following facts are not in dispute. In early 2022, the Respondent applied to the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment (“the Department”) – through a recruitment agency – for an employment permit to allow the Complainant legally work in the country as a plumber. As part of the application process, the Respondent submitted to the Department a statement of terms and conditions of employment, signed by both parties, which cited an employment start date of 20 June 2022. The Complainant did not start employment with the Respondent as anticipated on 20 June 2022, as the relevant paperwork was not in order. The Department subsequently granted an employment permit on 9 September 2022. The Complainant was granted a visa to enter the country. He arrived in Ireland on 31 December 2022. It is accepted that the Complainant never worked for the Respondent company. 

The Complainant contends that his primary employment relationship always remained with the Respondent company, notwithstanding the fact that he worked for another named entity during the relevant timeframe for the complaint. As the complaint was lodged to the WRC on 25 October 2023, the timeframe for consideration by the Court, having regard to the statutory time limits for lodging complaints, is the period from 26 April 2023 to 25 October 2023.

The Complainant fully accepts that he never physically worked for the Respondent company. The Complainant relies on a statement of terms of employment signed by both parties and his employment permit to assert that the Respondent is correctly cited as his employer for the purposes of his complaint. From the Complainant’s own evidence, he was employed by another entity from February 2023 until his employment was terminated by that entity in May 2023. He relies on an email from the WRC to him dated 29 August 2023 acknowledging receipt of a complaint by the Complainant about that other entity to ground the within complaint under the 2014 Act. The Complainant has failed to establish a legal relationship between the Respondent and that other entity such that he can assert that his primary employment relationship remained with the Respondent during the relevant time for the within complaint.

The Court has much sympathy for the predicament that the Complainant found himself in. The Complainant, a foreign national, moved from his home country to Ireland on the clear expectation that he was to work as a plumber with the Respondent only to find on his arrival that the role was no longer available. His evidence was that he only became aware of the change to his employment status on 20 September 2023 following an exchange of correspondence from the WRC Inspectorate.

On the facts presented in this case, the Complainant has failed to establish that he worked as an employee for the Respondent during the relevant time for the complaint. Accordingly, the Court can find no basis for his complaint that the Respondent breached the 2014 Act.

5. Finding

For the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the complaint is not well founded. The Adjudications Officer’s decision is affirmed. The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
30/09/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.