|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : AN EMPLOYER DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1. Complaint In Relation To Treatment By Company The Worker is a part-qualified management accountant. At the material time, she was an agency worker and assigned by Brightwater Selection Ireland (‘Brightwater’) on a temporary assignment to the Company. The assignment was expected to last for twelve weeks to provide temporary cover for permanent employees of the Company who were engaged on a specific automation project elsewhere in the Company. The Worker’s assignment with the Company commenced on 31 October 2019. The written terms of engagement provided by Brightwater stated: “As is the nature of temporary assignments, any party (Candidate, Client of Employment Business) can choose to discontinue the assignment at any time, with one hour’s notice.” Approximately three weeks after the Worker’s assignment had commenced, the project referred to above concluded. Permanent staff members were thus freed up to undertake the work which the Worker was undertaking on an agency basis. The Worker was notified that this was the case on Monday 25 November 2019. She was, nevertheless, retained by the Company until the following Friday, 29 November 2019, when her assignment ended. The Complainant referred a dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 to the Workplace Relations Commission on 27 August 2021, approximately 20 months after her assignment with the Company had ended. The Company objected to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer. The Worker, thereafter, referred the within dispute to the Labour Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Her referral to the Court is dated 15 October 2021. In her complaint form, the Worker alleges that she was subject to unfair treatment by her colleagues while working for the Company and she submits that that premature termination of her assignment arose because she had complained about this mistreatment of her. The Worker further alleges that soon after she had left the Company, management at the Company sought information about her from past employers through ‘unlawful’ and ‘unscrupulous’ means. Alleged Mistreatment The Worker accepts that she did not raise an issue in relation to the alleged mistreatment of her by her colleagues during the four weeks of her assignment with the Company. She says that she had not been made aware of any policies or procedures in place in the Company that would have facilitated her making a complaint. The Respondent submits that the Worker’s Terms of Engagement provides that she should inform Brightwater “in the first instance about any grievance”. In reply to questions from the Court, the Worker confirmed that she had not raised the matter with Brightwater. It follows from the foregoing, that the first matter in respect of which the Worker complains (i.e. that her assignment was prematurely terminated as a result of her raising issues about her co-workers’ mistreatment of her) does not stand up. Alleged Unlawful and Unscrupulous Information Gathering The Worker told the Court that she had a ‘suspicion’ that the Company gathered information about her from former employers after her assignment ended. She told the Court that she had, in fact, no evidence to support her suspicions in this regard. The Company submits that it bears no ill will to the Worker who had been assigned to it by Brightwater for a relatively short period. It denies that it engaged with any third party, other than Brightwater, in relation to the Worker. Having considered the Parties’ submissions in relation to this matter, the Court finds that there is no basis on which to uphold the Worker’s allegations. In summary, the Court finds that neither of the Worker’s allegations are well-founded. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
