Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Santa  Musinska

Masterlink Solutions Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

 Eleanor Power BL instructed by Cleary & Co Solicitors

 Connellan Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00064727-002

09/07/2024

The Complainant was employed as a Picker from 16 October 2023. She gave evidence under affirmation at the hearing, during which she alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability by the Respondent.

The Respondent is a limited company and part of a group of companies providing logistics services to a variety of customers. Mr Brendan Hickey, Manager, gave evidence under affirmation, as did Fiona Savage, Quality Manager, and Helen Shoer, Coty Department Team Leader.

This matter was initially scheduled for hearing on 19 February 2025. At that hearing, the Complainant requested an adjournment, to which the Respondent consented. However, the application for adjournment was declined on the basis that the Complaint Form lacked detail, no submissions had been received from the Complainant, and, in the interest of fairness, the Respondent was entitled to be informed of the nature of the complaint against it.

The Complainant proceeded to present her evidence, and the hearing was subsequently adjourned to allow the Respondent to take instructions. Directions were issued for the filing of submissions.

There were a number of related matters, with the Complainant lodging complaints against six companies within the Masterlink group.

The Complainant submitted that a data subject access request had been sent but was not complied with by the Respondent. The purpose of this request was to identify the correct Respondent; however, it was unsuccessful.

The Complainant proceeded with the complaint at the hearing and sought adjudication on all six complaints.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that she was dismissed on 26 January 2024 on the grounds of discrimination due to her disability.

The Respondent denied each of the complaints.

In relation to this complaint, it was submitted that the named Respondent was not the correct employer. It was submitted that the Respondent comprises a group of companies operating under the "Masterlink" brand, each of which is a separate legal entity with distinct operational functions. The Respondent in this complaint, Masterlink Solutions Limited provides logistics services exclusively to Dunnes Stores. Each of these entities operates in a siloed manner, meaning they do not share operations or overlap in their business dealings. Oak Central Recruitment Services Limited is a separate company that provides human capital and warehouse management services to the Masterlink entities.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was not employed by any of the Masterlink companies, including the Respondent, and that employment and operational responsibilities are maintained independently within each entity. Instead, it was asserted that the Complainant was employed by Oak Central Recruitment Services Limited, not by this Respondent.

In these circumstances, the Respondent sought to have the complaint dismissed.

This complaint was heard alongside five other complaints initiated by the same Complainant.

In filing her complaints, the Complainant was unable to identify the correct Respondent.

On the second hearing date, the Respondent made detailed submissions regarding its corporate structure and clarified who the correct employer was. The Respondent’s solicitor submitted to the Tribunal that the correct Respondent was Oak Central Recruitment Services Limited.

Despite this, the Complainant proceeded with each complaint against each of the named Respondents.

Section 2 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 (the “Acts”) defines:

““agency worker” means an employee whose contract of employment is as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the definition of such a contract in this subsection;”

“employee", subject to subsection (3), means a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment and, where the context admits, includes a member or former member of a regulatory body, but, so far as regards access to employment, does not include a person employed in another person’s home for the provision of personal services for persons residing in that home where the services affect the private or family life of those persons”

“employer”, subject to subsection (3), means, in relation to an employee, the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment;”

The contract of employment signed by the Complainant on 20 October 2023 states a commencement date of 16 October 2023. The named employer on this contract is “OAK Central Recruitment Services Limited,” with a registered business address in Blanchardstown, Dublin 15.

Applying Section 2 of the Acts to the signed contract of employment, I find that the Respondent in this complaint was not the Complainant’s employer.

Consequently, I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent.

I find the Complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent.

Discrimination – Correct Respondent