ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052616
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jelena Koroleva | Northway Mushrooms Co-Operative Society Limited |
Representatives | Ciaran Doherty B.L. instructed by Wilkie & Flanagan LLP Solicitors | Nicola Murphy Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00064272-001 | 24/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00064272-003 | 24/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/11/2024 & 12/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. This matter was heard in conjunction with Case ADJ 00052615 The complainant gave her evidence under affirmation. A person from the respondent attended the initial hearing in an observer capacity only. The respondent’s representative indicated that the complainant was not employed by the respondent. However, it was confirmed by a witness of the respondent in the other complaint (ADJ 52615) that payslips issued to the complainant from this respondent and that she appeared on this respondents Revenue returns for a 5-month period. It was submitted that the complainant was at all times an employee of the respondent in ADJ 52615 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that she may have been an employee of the respondent. She submitted that she was unfairly dismissed by the respondent and that she was not provided with a copy of her terms and conditions of employment in writing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the complainant was never an employee of the respondent but was, at all material times, an employee of the respondent to complaint ADJ 52615. This was accepted by that respondent who were also present at this hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent submitted that the complainant was never an employee of the respondent. This clarification was not contended by the complainant. I note that the respondent issued payslips to the complainant, and she was registered as an employee with the respondent. I note that the respondent seemed to share staff with the respondent in the case of ADJ 52615 and that it was submitted that the complainant was registered on one accounting system in error. This contention was not opposed by the complainant. Having regard to the submission that the complainant was not employed by the respondent but was instead employed at all material times by another employer, I accept this contention. CA-00064272-001 Unfair Dismissal Act I find that the complainant was not an employee of the respondent and was not dismissed, fairly or otherwise from her employment. CA-00064272-001 Terms of Employment information Act I find that the complaint under the is Terms of Employment (Information) Act is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complains in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00064272-001 Unfair Dismissal Act Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, my decision is that the complainant was not dismissed. CA-00064272-001 Terms of Employment information Act Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 26-11-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal – Not an employee – no dismissal took place – Terms of Information – complaint not well founded |