Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Agency Worker

An Agency

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking Adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

IR - SC - 00004266

08/05/2025

The worker had been placed by the agency in an employment location where she had worked for a considerable number of years. A dispute arose at that location in late October 2024. This resulted in a letter issuing to the worker in early November 2024 terminating the work placement. In this letter, the worker was thanked for her commitment to the service, and it was indicated that she would not be required to work in that employment anymore. The worker did not work again with the agency as the employment location was convenient, and the worker was not satisfied with how the work placement had ended.

The worker submitted complaints to the WRC on the termination of the work placement, no employment contract, and the rate of pay.

The worker outlined the circumstances under which her work placement was terminated. In preparing complaints to the WRC, she realised that her statutory rights had been breached on other aspects of her employment. For example, she did not receive a signed contract and contested her rate of pay, annual leave/public holiday entitlement. She also claimed her placement ended due to her advocacy on behalf of a service user.

The worker accepted that some of her complaints concerned issues with the employer where she had been placed. That employer was not on notice or in attendance at the hearing. The employment agency was in attendance and the worker agreed that the dispute could proceed under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, although solely against the employer (agency) who was on notice and in attendance. It was explained that the merits of the dispute would be investigated and that a recommendation would then issue to both parties. The worker agreed with this approach and outlined the issues in dispute.

The employer (agency) in attendance said that some of the complaints did not concern his agency and were against another employer. He said he assisted the worker by attending the meeting in late October 2024. He said his objective in attending the meeting was to see if the worker could continue to be placed at that location. As this was not possible, he then offered alternative work which the worker refused due to the location. Without prejudice that he was not the correct employer for some complaints; he was in attendance at the hearing to assist in resolving matters. He agreed that the dispute could proceed under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act. It was explained that the merits of the dispute would be investigated and that a recommendation would then issue to both parties. He agreed with this approach and responded to the issues raised by the worker.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions and discussions at the hearing. There was an obvious difficulty in that I did not have input from management where the worker was placed for a considerable number of years. Despite this, the worker outlined in her submission and at the hearing the events that had transpired. Her account is consistent with the contemporaneous letters in her submission as the issues arose in October 2024.

From her employer’s perspective (the agency), the Director attended the meeting in late October 2024 with the objective to keep the worker in that location. As this was not possible, he offered the worker alternative work. In his mind, there was no actual dismissal.

Although the fact of dismissal is in dispute, the correspondence at that time made it clear that the work placement in that location was over. The worker said she was not afforded an impartial investigation or her full rights when that placement ended. If this was the case, then the worker can rightly feel aggrieved although the management at the work placement may contest this. As there was no right of reply by management, I cannot decide whether there was an unfair dismissal or not. Her employer (the agency) though could not be held responsible for alleged defects in the termination of the placement. The worker accepted this at the hearing.

The other complaints date back to previous years although the lack of an employment contract subsisted up until the end of employment in November 2024.

In considering the merits of the dispute, the worker was treated unfairly particularly given the extensive years at the work placement without incident. The lack of a signed contact with expressed terms also disadvantaged the worker particularly towards the end of her employment when issues arose.

I recommend that the employer (the agency) pay compensation of €4,500.00 to the worker in full and final settlement of the dispute. For clarity, this is redress of compensation and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

Termination, Terms of Employment