ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031838
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Muzikayise Nxumalo | Step and Stone |
Representatives |
| Crushell & Co Solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00033298-001 | 16/12/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00033298-002 | 16/12/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00033298-003 | 16/12/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints 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.
Background & preliminary Matter:
The complainant had been employed as a Care Assistant. This was one of two complaints made against his employer, one under the name seen above and a separate complaint against Cora Residential Care which is the subject of ADJ 31595. Both cases were heard together. His employment terminated on January 16th, 2020 and this complaint was made on the same day. However, due to uncertainty on the part of the complainant as to what redress he was seeking it was not referred for adjudication until November 2nd, 2020. The second set of complaints, against Cora Residential Care was made some nine months later, on September 14th, 2020. Cora Residential Care ceased trading on December 31st, 2020. The respondent has submitted that the complainant was never employed by the entity named above and accordingly, this fell to be dealt with as a preliminary matter. (For convenience the employer representative who attended the hearing will be referred to as ‘the respondent’, although that is obviously in issue). |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant explained that he understood that his employer was as named above and said that he had made a previous complaint against ‘Stepping Stone’ which had been heard by the WRC. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted documentation identifying a different entity as the complainant’s employer. While there is an entity known as ‘Stepping Stone’ (and not ‘Step and Stone’ as named in the complaint), the complainant was never an employee of that company. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent submitted various documentation to show that the complainant’s contract of employment was with Cora Residential Care and not this named respondent, Step and Stone. These included the complainant’s written contract of employment and terms of Employment, dated October 22nd 20-19 (but not signed by the complainant) and a number of payslips. These payslips clearly show that the complainant was employed by Cora Residential Care and as the name of the entity appears directly above his own name on the payslip it is hard to believe it could have escaped his attention. The complainant’s understanding of this would appear to be confirmed by the making of his later complaint against the correct entity, although that complaint was not made within the prescribed time limits. In any event, the named respondent was not the complainant’s employer and his complaints cannot proceed against it. They are not well-founded. |
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.
For the reasons set out above complaints CA-00033298-001, 002 and 003 are not well-founded. |
Dated: 23-08-2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Wrong respondent named. |