Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patrick McCarry

Greencastle Media Group

Representatives

 Self

Ferry Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00065682-001

29/08/2024

The Complainant submitted a complaint form to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 29th August, 2024. The complaint form identified the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 as the legislation that the Complainant was bringing his complaint under.

At the hearing, the Complainant gave evidence under oath. However, two preliminary issues arose and the hearing was adjourned in order to allow both parties to make written submissions in relation to those two issues.

Both parties availed of that opportunity, and I have decided to issue this decision on the basis of one of those preliminary issues, that of the identity of the Respondent. The summaries below of the Complainant’s and Respondent’s cases are in respect of this issue.

In the Complainant’s complaint form, he outlines a redundancy process that took place in relation to his employment. He stated that his complaint was broad, and not entirely linked to one area. He said that what happened was completely unfair and he just wanted what was fair, after 10 years of working for his employer.

At the hearing, the issue of the name of the Complainant’s employer arose and the Complainant made written submissions in relation to this matter. The Complainant stated in submissions that the Respondent had acknowledged that “Greencastle Media Group” is the employer because of a point in the Respondent’s submissions where it says “The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from September 1st, 2014 to June 20th 2024.” The Complainant also provided a copy of his contract with the company, which he says would have been superseded by a new contract following his appointment as editorial lead.

Letters from Megan Pain, Greencastle HR Manager, confirming his offer and appointment in the role of Editorial Lead dated 13th October 2022 and 28th October 2022 were submitted, together with press coverage of a buy out when, he says, Greencastle Media Group took over the Joe.ie business. He notes that he was first employed by Maximum Media Network, but this was ultimately taken over by Greencastle Media Group.

The Complainant stated that this was the commonly used name for the company, in Ireland and the UK, and that internal correspondence and emails all went through @greencastlemediagroup addresses. He said that plenty of presentations, including a revised company organisational chart, featured heavy GMC/Greencastle Media group branding and wording.

The Complainant submitted that his letter of offer, the various articles referred to above and the Respondent’s own previous submission clearly show why he is of the understanding that his employer was Greencastle Media Group.

The Respondent states that there was no basis for the Complainant to make his complaint against Greencastle Media Group but that he did so consciously and deliberately. A submission from the Complainant where he stated that “…I was first employed by Maximum Media and then transferred over to Greencastle Media under the TUPE process following its acquisition of the JOE.ie business.” was factually incorrect and not substantiated in any way. It was submitted that it could not be substantiated in any way because the Complainant’s employer was, at all times, Maximum Media Network Limited and such a transfer of his employment never took place.

A contract of employment dated 24th September 2021 for the position of rugby editor was submitted. The contract shows the employer as Maximum Media Network Limited and the employee as Patrick McCarry. Maximum Media Network Limited is referenced in multiple places throughout the contract, but Greencastle Media Group does not appear anywhere on this document.

A copy of the letter of termination dated 25th April 2024 was provided and it was noted that at the foot of each page of that letter it stated:

Maximum Media Network Ltd. (T/A Joe Media Group),

The Lofts, 41a Pleasant St., Saint Kevin’s, Dublin 8,

D08 KR99. Registration Number: 9745540R.”

This letter not only confirms the identity of the Complainant’s employer, it provides the trading name, the registered office address and the Companies Registration Office number.

It was noted that both of the above documents were submitted by the Complainant and he was therefore fully aware of the identity of his employer. It was submitted that he could have been in no doubt who his employer was from at least September 2021 right up until the date of the termination of his employment, although in fact this was his employer for the duration of his employment. Each and every payslip that the Complainant received throughout the course of his employment had Maximum Media Network Limited on it. Multiple payslips were submitted by the Respondent and ranged in date from 31st December 2016 up to 30th June 2024. Maximum Media Network Limited appears on each payslip submitted by the Respondent.

The Respondent also stated that, notwithstanding the unimpeachable content of the documents referred to above, the Complainant could at any time have accessed his Revenue record which would have confirmed Maximum Media Network Limited as his employer.

The Respondent submitted that any jurisdiction for an Adjudication Officer to permit amendments to a complaint form does not extend to changing the Respondent to an entirely different entity, particularly outside the six month limitation period in circumstances where there is no reasonable basis for the Complainant to name Greencastle Media Group.

Preliminary Issue

It is unusual for cases to be determined by a preliminary issue however, in the particular circumstances of this case, the issue of the identity of the Respondent has the potential to be determinative of the case.

I am mindful of the case of Bus Eireann v. SIPTU [PTD8/2004] where the Labour Court indicated that a preliminary point should be determined separately from other issues arising in a case “where it could lead to considerable savings in both time and expense”.

In B.T.F. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] IESC 37Hardiman J, found:

"It is often a difficult and delicate decision as to whether to try a particular issue as a preliminary matter. In a case where a point is raised which in and of itself and without regard to anything else may terminate the whole proceedings, clearly a strong case can be made for its trial as a preliminary issue…

Following the caselaw outlined above, the issue of who the complaint is made against, in other words who the correct Respondent is, is one that can be decided at a preliminary stage of proceedings.

If this issue alone can end the case or may "terminate the whole proceedings", then it is appropriate to decide it first, before hearing the full complaint. Accordingly, I will address the matter of the incorrectly named respondent at the outset in circumstances where I find that there is a “strong case” for determining this matter by way of preliminary decision.

This is a case where the Complainant has not sought to amend the name of his employer, but rather has relied on the fact that he believes that the named Respondent was his employer. I must therefore make a determination on whether or not Greencastle Media Group was the Complainant’s employer.

The Respondent has provided compelling documentation, namely the contract of employment, letter of termination and payslips. Each of these documents show that the Complainant’s employer was Maximum Media Network Limited. The Complainant states in his complaint form that his employment terminated on 20th June 2024. The Respondent has provided a payslip dated 30th June 2024 on which Maximum Media Network Limited, not Greencastle Media Group, appears.

The Complainant seeks to rely on letters from Megan Pain, HR Manager with GMC as well as press coverage. However, I note that the letter of offer dated 28th October 2022 states:

“We are pleased to offer you the full-time position of Editorial Lead at Maximum Media. Your start date will be November 1st, 2022.”

This correspondence clearly indicates that Maximum Media would be the Complainant’s employer. The press coverage submitted also references Greencastle acquiring certain brands, but I do not consider that sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship in this case.

I acknowledge the line in the Respondent’s submission where it states “The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from September 1st, 2014 to June 20th 2024.” However, the Complainant submitted his complaint form well in advance of this statement and the issue for me to determine is what legal entity he actually had an employment relationship with. Particularly in the face of the multiple documents provided, I do not find that this single statement can have the effect of creating an employment relationship between the Complainant and Greencastle Media Group.

A similar circumstance has most recently been addressed by the Labour Court in Lawlor’s Hotel and Deborah McMahon (HSD2514). In that case, the Court was satisfied that the Complainant:

“…was on notice at all times that her employer was Burke Hotels Limited as stated in her contract of employment and on her payslips. This oversight on the Complainant’s part is not something that the Court has any statutory basis to rectify. The Court is further satisfied that the facts of the within appeal are entirely distinguishable from those in Auto Depot Limited v Vasile Mateiu UDD1954, which the Complainant’s representative seeks to rely on. In the latter case, the Complainant had been employed by the named Respondent, and by a related company the name of which differed only very slightly from it, had never been given any written documentation or payslips and English was not his native language.”

I find that the facts of the within case are in line with the case of Lawlor’s Hotel and Deborah McMahon as set out above. The Complainant’s letter of offer states that the position was at Maximum Media. The name of the employer on the Complainant’s payslips was Maximum Media Network Limited. The name of the employer at the bottom of the letter terminating the Complainant’s employment is Maximum Media Network Ltd (T/A Joe Media Group). The Complainant’s contract of employment is with Maximum Media Network Limited. In all the circumstances, I find that the Complainant’s employer was, at all material times, Maximum Media Network Limited and not the named Respondent herein, Greencastle Media Group.

Following the reasoning in the Labour Court decision set out above, the Complainant was at all material times on notice that his employer was Maximum Media Network Ltd and this case is also distinguishable from Auto Depot Limited v Vasile Mateiu UDD1954 as the Complainant has a contract of employment and payslips which both identify his employer. I am satisfied that the Complainant did not have an employment relationship with the named Respondent in this case, Greencastle Media Group, at the material time.

Particularly in circumstances where the Complainant has not sought to amend the name of the Respondent, I find that the complaint must fail as the Complainant has named the incorrect legal entity as Respondent.

I find that I have no jurisdiction to inquire further into this complaint as it has been submitted against the incorrect Respondent.

Incorrect respondent