Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employment Agency

Representatives

Self-represented

HR Brief Ltd

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00003324

23/10/2024

The Worker referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 in relation to unfair dismissal.

The Worker was assigned to work at the premises of a third-party entity.

Following an exchange at the third-party’s workplace on 17 October 2024, the Worker was escorted off site.

The Worker had been working as a forklift driver and storeman at the premises of a third-party company from August 2024.

On 17 October 2024, the Worker attended at the third-party workplace and worked as usual until he was requested to attend at the office.  The Worker was informed by the third party’s Health & Safety Officer that a complaint had been made against him.  The meeting was short, and the Worker was not informed of the complaint detail.  The Worker told the Health & Safety Officer that he had not had any contact with the complainant.  The Worker was told to gather his belongings, and he was escorted off the company’s premises.  The Worker was not subsequently contacted by the third-party company regarding an investigation.  The Employment Agency was not aware of what had occurred until the Worker informed it.

The Worker submitted that there were allegations made against him, he was unfairly dismissed, and nobody had taken responsibility or explained the reasons for his dismissal.

The Employment Agency accepted that it was the Worker’s employer for the purpose of payment of wages and associated taxation and social welfare responsibilities. 

The Employment Agency employed the Worker to work at client sites.  The client directed and supervised the Worker in carrying out his duties.   The Worker’s hours of work were dependent on client requirements.

In this case, the client removed the Worker from their workplace.  When the Worker told the Employment Agency what had occurred, the owner of the Agency telephoned the client to specifically ask for information about what was happening.  The Employment Agency took this very seriously and made representations to the client to try and find out what had happened. 

This did not influence the Employment Agency’s views or opinion of the Worker.  It had no evidence that the Worker had done anything wrong.  It trusted the Worker and offered the Worker further work on other client sites. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

My jurisdiction under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (the “1969 Act”) is to investigate a trade dispute.

It was evident at the hearing before me that there was no trade dispute between the parties within the meaning of the 1969 Act.    The Employment Agency did not dismiss the Worker on 17 October 2024.  The parties agreed that the Employment Agency offered the Worker further work on 23 and 24 October 2024.  The Worker did in fact take up another job offered to him by the Employment Agency on 24 October and remained working there until the end of January 2025 when the Worker gave notice of termination to the Employment Agency.

On being informed by the Worker that he had been escorted from his workplace on 17 October 2024, the Employment Agency made efforts to ascertain what had happened from the third-party company.  Information was not forthcoming.  The Employment Agency did not let this prejudice its opinion of the Worker.

There was no dispute between the parties before me in relation to an unfair dismissal of the Worker.  The parties held the same view that the Worker should not have been escorted off a third-party site without any due process, as alleged.

In such circumstances, no recommendation is appropriate.

Employment Agency – Third-party client interaction with Worker – Trade Dispute