Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Nikola  Uzarevic

Ct Electric (Ire) Ltd

Representatives

  Self-represented

Ciaran Hughes Tiernans Solicitors

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-00069815-001

06/03/2025

The Complainant was employed as an electrician by CT Electrical (IRE) Limited from the 28th of August 2023. In 2024 he availed of annual leave followed by Paternity Leave followed by Parental leave from October 2024 to January 2025 at which time he was due to return to work. The Complainant made a claim pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) (“the UDA”) alleging that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment. 

The Respondent raised a preliminary issue as to the correct name of the Respondent who had been named by the Complainant. Without prejudice to this preliminary objection the Respondent denied that the Complainant was dismissed by his employer CT Electrical (IRE) Limited at any time and that he left his employment voluntarily in January 2025. 

In this case the Complainant initially instituted a claim to the WRC (“the Initial Complaint Form”) as against an entity which was described as “CT Electric (IRE) Ltd” whereas his employer was an entity named “CT Electrical (IRE) Limited”. The difference relates to the non-inclusion of the letters “..al” to form the word “Electrical” [Emphasis added] on the initial complaint form. There was no dispute that the respondent on the Initial Complaint form was incorrectly named and that the correct title for the Complainant’s employer at all material times, was “CT Electrical (IRE) Limited”. For ease of reference, I shall refer to the entity which was incorrectly named on the Initial Complainant Form as “the Incorrect Respondent” and the entity which employed the Complainant as “the Correct Respondent”. 

When this claim first came before me for hearing on the 19th of August 2025, the solicitor representing the Complainant’s former employer appeared and was very clear that he was instructed by an entity named “CT Electrical (IRE) Limited” and he advised that this entity was at all material times the employer of the Complainant and not the entity which the Complainant had named, which was “CT Electric (IRE) Ltd”. He confirmed that notwithstanding his appearance at the hearing he was not representing “CT Electric (IRE) Ltd” as no such entity exists and further that he was instructed on behalf of the Correct Respondent not to consent to any amendment of the title of the proceedings to reflect the correct name of the Complainant’s employer. The matter was adjourned and on the 16th of September 2025 the Complainant made a request to the WRC pursuant to Section 39 (4) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended) whereby he sought leave to initiate proceedings against the Correct Respondent. This application was allocated WRC Reference ADJ-00062275 and this file together with ADJ-00057464 were relisted for the 14th of October 2025 but was then postponed until the 9th of January 2026. On that date both parties made submissions regarding the Section 39 (4) application and both parties also indicated their respective intentions to rely on their previous submissions regarding the substantive issue of unfair dismissal as delivered in relation to the initial claim ADJ-00057464. It being apparent that the Section 39 (4) application required oral evidence which potentially overlapped with the evidence as to the substantive issue of unfair dismissal both parties agreed that all evidence would be heard in a single hearing at which both the preliminary issue of the Section 39 (4) application and the unfair dismissal issue would be heard in a single hearing. That hearing took place on the 27th of March 2026.

This file was cross referenced with ADJ-00062275. That file related to an application pursuant to Section 39 (4) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended) wherein the Complainant sought leave to pursue the Correct Respondent having incorrectly named the Respondent in the initial application. As recorded in my decision on file  ADJ-00062275 under the heading “The Section 39 (4) Application” the Complainant was given leave to pursue his claim against the entity named in that application, namely CT Electrical (IRE) Limited (“the Correct Respondent”) and accordingly it must follow that the respondent named in the present claim, “CT Electric (IRE) Ltd” did not employ the Complainant and cannot be liable for unfair dismissal. Accordingly I find that the Respondent in the present claim “CT Electric (IRE) Ltd.” did not unfairly dismiss the Complainant. 

CA-00069815-001 – The Complainant was not unfairly dismissed by this Respondent