ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053000
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Lee Mc Dermott | Jones Engineering Holdings Limited trading as Jones Engineering Group |
Representatives | Michael O’Doherty BL instructed by Caoimhe Connolly of Moran & Ryan Solicitors | Lorraine Smyth of Byrne Wallace Law Firm |
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-00064899-001 | 22/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00064899-002 | 22/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00064899-003 | 22/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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 complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Mr O’Doherty BL on behalf of the Complainant withdrew CA-00064899-002 under the Organisation of Working Time Act (“OWTA”) in the hearing as the criteria whereby a third party can be considered the employer under the OWTA is different to the 1993 Act, in that the entity that pays the employee’s wages is considered the employer. It is accepted that the Respondent did not pay the Complainant’s wages.
Background:
The Complainant is an Irish construction worker. In 2022 a family member was working on a Jones project located in Sweden. He informed him that there was a telehandler job going as well as some carpentry and the Complainant took the opportunity. He started working on the site in September 2022 which was located near Gävle until about March 2023 when he transferred to a different Jones site near Malmo. In January 2024 he was told he was being moved back to the Gävle site and he refused and the employment relationship ended.
The Complainant alleges that this move was as a result of a protected disclosure and that he was dismissed. He has submitted two complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act and a further complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act stating that he worked excessive hours in the 4 months before the employment relationship ended.
The Respondent have raised preliminary issues and submit they were never the Complainant’s employer.
A hearing was first arranged on the 14th of November 2024 and following that hearing the Respondent and Complainant both made submissions. The final submissions were lodged in July 2025. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was represented by Mr Michael O’Doherty BL, instructed by Ms Caoimhe Connolly, who made oral and written submissions on his behalf. The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation on the matters relevant to the preliminary arguments. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was represented by Ms Lorraine Smyth who made oral and written submissions on their behalf. They submit that they are not the Complainant’s employer for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Act or Organisation of Working Time Act. He was employed by an agency based in Scotland and assigned to work for a Swedish company. Without prejudice to these preliminary arguments they submit that the Complainant did not make protected disclosures nor was he penalised. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00064899-001 and CA-00064899-003 Unfair Dismissals Act (“UDA”) The Complainant has sought to rely on Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) to argue that the Respondent is his employer. This provides that where an employee is employed by an employment agency and assigned to do work for a third party then for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Act the person is an employee of the third party. The Respondent has raised a number of challenges to this argument. In particular they outline that the Complainant was assigned to do work not for the Respondent, which is a holding company, but rather for their Swedish subsidiary, Jones Group Sweden AB. They provided a redacted copy of the first page of their service agreement with the agency which hired the Complainant which identified the parties. The Complainant has argued that Jones Group Sweden AB was essentially just a PO box. The Respondent disputes this. They outlined that it is the entity organising the operations in Sweden and was in charge of the operations the Complainant was assigned to. Any employees of Jones group companies on the sites in Malmo and Gävle could not been employees of the Respondent as it employs no one. The Complainant disputes the relevance of his point and asserts that the work was ultimately for the Respondent. The burden is on the Complainant to establish that when he was working in Sweden he was performing work for Jones Engineering Holdings Limited rather than Jones Group Sweden AB or any other entity. On review of the evidence available to me has not done so, while he may have been directed by employees and contractors of different Jones group entities it appears none of these were employed or engaged by the Respondent. On review of the submissions and evidence available to me the complaints cannot succeed against this Respondent. |
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.
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-00064899-001 I find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00064899-002 This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing. CA-00064899-003 I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 3rd November 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|