Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Chiara  Reilly

Mercury Engineering

Representatives

 Construction Industry Federation

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00068433-001

05/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00068434-001

05/01/2025

The complainant’s employment was terminated by her employer on October 30th, 2024 in the course of her probation when working for them in Germany.

She was given no notice and was brought into a room to be told that her  probation was being terminated with 'good cause' and no other explanation. She was given two weeks’ notice but told she could leave that day.

There were two complaints. The complainant confirmed that one of these was a duplicate and was withdrawn.

A preliminary issue arises as to whether the complainant has named the correct respondent.

The respondent has submitted evidence of the complainant’s contract of employment which is with a legal entity described as mercury Engineering GMbH, Dortmund, Germany.

It is the respondent's position that the claim is without merit.

The complainant is not and has never been an employee of the respondent company. She  sets out on her Workplace Relations Complaint form that she was employed by Mercury Engineering and says that she was "working for them" in Germany.

In fact, the complainant was employed by Mercury Engineering GmbH, the German entity of the overall organisation. The complainant was clear that she worked for Mercury in Germany, and the contract of employment states clearly in the terms of conditions of employment that the legal employer is Mercury Engineering GmbH of Ruhrallee 9, 44139 Dortmund, Germany.

The Relevant law in relation to this matter is REGULATION (EC) No 593/2008 of the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I),  

Specifically, Article 3 and Article 8, Rome (I) (Appendix 2) is the authority in relation to the applicable law to be applied to contracts of employment specifically, Article 8.

The Claimants terms and conditions of employment (submitted in evidence) states in the First Paragraph that the employer is "Mercury Engineering GmbH of Ruhrallee 9, 44139 Dormont Germany (the Company). Clearly sets out that the employer is the German Entity.

Further and more significantly clause 12 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment State at paragraph ii:

‘This contract will be covered at all times by the laws of Germany.’

It is clear from the above that the employment and any potential or perceived Illegality or unfairness must is governed by the Laws of Germany the sole Jurisdiction of German Labours Courts.

The German Courts are the correct point of redress, not the WRC.

The complainant said that she had put a lot of effort into her preparation for the hearing and hoped that it would be heard on its merits.

She accepted that she had signed the contract with the German legal entity as exhibited by the respondent.

The respondent has raised a preliminary point as to whether the WRC has jurisdiction in respect of the complaint.

While the German entity enjoys certain shared support services from the ’parent’ group based in Ireland, such as payroll and HR and this may have confused the complainant as to who was actually her employer,  it is clear from the Contract of Employment that her actual employer was a separate legal entity, and no the named respondent in this complaint.

That legal entity is specifically the one with which the complainant entered into her contract of employment.

She did not dispute this at the hearing.

She had been on notice of this for some time and had the option (and was then within time) to enter a fresh complaint identifying the correct respondent but did not do so.

In the circumstances she has named the wrong respondent, meaning that the correct respondent was not on notice of the hearing.

I find therefore that I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint against the named respondent.

Complaint CA-00068433-001 was withdrawn.

For the reasons set out Complaint CA-00068434-001 is not well founded.

Wrong Respondent named