ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006288
Parties:
|
|
Complainant |
Respondent |
|
Anonymised Parties |
A Warehouse Operative |
An Employment Agency |
Complaint(s):
|
Act |
Complaint/Dispute Reference No. |
Date of Receipt |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 |
CA-00008595-001 |
05/12/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
|
This case (Adj 6288) concerns a claim of Redundancy by an employee of an Employment Agency. It follows on from his alleged Dismissal by a Freight Handling & Distribution Company (Case Adj 6367) the client of the Employment Agency. Both claims were heard consecutively at the Oral hearing. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
|
The Complainant had worked for the Respondent Agency since 10th of October 2013 and was due a Redundancy payment based on his qualifying service. He was afforded no opportunity to make a case and was summarily terminated by the Respondent. No Appeal was allowed to the decision. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
|
The Complainant was dismissed by the principal employer for Gross Misconduct. (Adj 6367). He was not dismissed for reason of Redundancy by the Employment Agency and his claim must accordingly fail. Furthermore, the Complainant does not have a Contract of Service but rather a Contract for Services with the Employment Agency. It follows therefore that he does not qualify as an eligible employee for any Redundancy payment from the Employment Agency -the Respondent in this case, |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
|
Following a detailed investigation and Disciplinary Process at the main employer the Complainant was dismissed. In Adj 6367 the dismissal was not found to be unfair. Accordingly, the claim for Redundancy must fail. Secondly, I was not satisfied that the Complainant qualified as an employee of the Respondent Employment Agency for the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Act,1967. On this ground the claim also failed. Claim is dismissed. |
3: Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
|
Act |
Complaint/Dispute Reference No. |
Summary Decision /Refer to Section 3 above for detailed arguments. |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 |
CA-00008595-001 |
Claim Dismissed. |
Dated: 16th November 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
|
|