Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alan  O Leary

Adecco

Representatives

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant

Sophie Crosbie IBEC and Richard Hayes by hybrid from UK

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012

CA-00074045-001

04/08/2025

On 4 August 2025, the Complainant, Mr. Alan O’Leary, a forklift operator, and Agency worker submitted a complaint that as an Agency Worker he did not receive the same basic working and employment conditions to which a comparable worker would be entitled.

On 12 August 2025, the Respondent, Adecco was notified of the claim.

On 13 August 2025, the Complainant submitted a Supplementary case study.

On 26 August 2025, the WRC notified the complainant that the notification to the respondent had been returned marked “gone away “. He was requested to provide an alternative contact point for the respondent.

This was provided. The Respondent was properly notified of the claim and appointed IBEC to represent their client.

On 30 September 2025, the Complainant emailed the WRC and stated:

“I am writing to confirm that I have now submitted all relevant evidence for my complaint under the Agency Workers Act (Ca-00074045-001). My file includes pay slips, timecards, comparator information, and any other documentation needed to support my case. Unless the Adjudicator requires further information, I consider my submission to be final at this stage.

I would appreciate confirmation that my file has been received in full and is sent to the respondent “

On 24 June 2026, Both Parties were invited to attend a hearing in the case set for 4 September 2026 at 11.30 am in Cork.

On 17 August 2026, the Respondent filed their submission in the case, which was shared with the complainant.

During the week preceding the hearing, the Respondent requested their UK Counsel to attend by hybrid. This was facilitated.

In preparation for hearing, the WRC sent this communique to the complainant on 27 August 2026.

Dear Alan O’Leary

27 August 2026

 I am writing in relation to the above-referenced complaint and to confirm the arrangements for the hearing scheduled for Friday, 4 September. Following a request for the Respondent's legal representative to attend remotely, the Adjudication Officer assigned to this complaint has agreed that the hearing may proceed on a hybrid basis. This arrangement has been approved to facilitate the attendance of the Respondent company's internal lawyer, who is based in the United Kingdom and will participate remotely. All other parties should attend in accordance with the hearing details previously issued.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at hearing.

The Respondent represented by Ms. Sophie Crosbie attended with a company delegation.

I have waited 5 days and have not received any reason for the complainants’ non-appearance at hearing.

I am obliged to move to complete the decision in the case.

CA-00074045-001  

The Complainant submitted the following complaint under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 on 4 August 2025.

He had worked for the Respondent Agency, based at Heineken Ireland ltd from 22 May 2021 to 24 February 2024. The complaint form did not indicate what wage was earned.

The Complainant wrote:

“I believe I have been underpaid compared to full-time Heineken staff doing the same work. I was denied equal treatment under the AWR Act, 2012. I raised this with Adecco/ Heineken, but no action has been taken. I am seeking full back pay and recognition of my rights under law.”

The Complainant submitted a dossier of uncoordinated documents and indicated that he was part of a broader grouping but gave no details of this.

The Complainant did not make an appearance in his own case, and he did not open evidence in the case.

The Complainant did not file a response to the Respondent Preliminary Argument on statutory time limits.

CA-0007045-001

The Respondent is a Global Company which delivers services across permanent, temporary, managed, and outsourced recruitment built on local branches.

The Respondent has not disputed that they are an Employment Agency.

By way of background in defending the claim, Ms Crosbie for the Respondent outlined that the complainant had been placed in the capacity of a Forklift Operator with a client on various dates between May 2021 and 29 December 2023, under an exhibited contract of employment.

“Adecco will seek suitable work assignments for the employee to carry out on a continuous basis in accordance with the Employees skills, qualifications and experience and Adecco will offer such work assignments to the Employee as and when such work assignments become available.”

Preliminary Argument:

The Respondent outlined by way of written submission that the claim as presented was statute barred as the complainant had left the respondent employment on 24 February 2024 and

“Did not lodge any claim before 4 August 2025.”

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 was set out as the framework of jurisdiction and Section 41(8) extension on reasonable cause grounds.

Therefore, Ms Crosbie contended that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to hear any complaint arising more than 12 months prior to the date the complaint is lodged.

She added:

“As the Complainant was not employed during any time during the cognisable period of the complaint, there can be no contravention of the Act during that period, and the complaint is therefore statute barred “

The Respondent sought that the claim be dismissed.

Case Law referred to on limitation to Jurisdiction:

Donegal Meat Processors T/ A Foyle Donegal and Donal Gillespie UDD 2114, Labour Court.

Bus Eireann v SIPTU PTD8 /2004

Becton Dickinson Penel ltd and Mr Philip Goring UDD 213

Red chair Recruitment and Tim Walshe AWD 191, complainant had finished work, 9 months prior to the date of complaint. The Labour Court did not grant an extension of time.

The Respondent came to hearing in the company of IBECs Ms Crosbie, a Company Representative and Legal Counsel present on hybrid screen.

In response to my query, they had not heard from the complainant, prior to hearing.

The Respondent confirmed that they had done a final scoping exercise prior to hearing and stood over the dates of the complainants’ assignment to the client.

CA-0007045-001

I have been requested to reach a Decision in this case. In reaching this decision, I have had regard to the written submissions received from both parties.

I did not have the benefit of meeting with the complainant, on whom the burden of proof lay in the case.

He did not address the Preliminary Argument.

I have no idea why the Complainant did not attend the hearing in his own case. He did not give any prior notice of his intention not to attend.

The WRC invested a considerable resource to this hearing in extending the hybrid screen.

I am satisfied that the complainant was on full notice of the hearing in his case and his nonappearance must be classified as unreasonable.

I have waited 5 days prior to submitting this Decision to the Parties, I have not received any correspondence or communication from the complainant in this intervening period.

The Respondent has requested the claim be dismissed as I cannot safely derive a jurisdiction under Legislation to decide on the facts.

The instant claim submitted under the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 is encompassed in the provisions of Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, where I have been given jurisdiction to address claims under Section 6 of that Act.

An Agency worker is defined in Section 2 as:

“Agency worker” means an individual employed by an employment agency under a contract of employment by virtue of which the individual may be assigned to work for, and under the direction and supervision of, a person other than the employment agency.

The Agency Act has wide sweeping powers on basic working conditions and anti-penalisation by employer and hirer. It provides a safe space to challenge presumed contraventions through referral to the WRC. It is not a new piece of Legislation.

The Workplace Relations Act, 2015 also provides an in person or by a Trade Union action, an opportunity to challenge the Hirer (client of agency) at Section 41(3).

(3) (a) An agency worker (in this Act also referred to as a “complainant”) within the meaning of the Act of 2012 or any trade union of which the agency worker is a member, with the consent of the agency worker, may present a complaint to the Director General that the hirer (within the meaning of that Act) of the agency worker has contravened section 11, 14 or 24 of that Act in relation to the agency worker, and where a complaint is so presented the Director General shall, subject to section 39, refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer.

(b) References to employee and employer in the subsequent provisions of this Part shall, in so far as they relate to a complaint to which this subsection applies, be construed as references to agency worker within the meaning of the Act of 2012 and hirer within the meaning of that Act respectively.

The passageway to management of complaints is via the Workplace Relations Act, 2015

Presentation of complaints and referral of disputes

41. (1) An employee (in this Act referred to as a “complainant”) or, where the employee so consents, a specified person may present a complaint to the Director General that the employee’s employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1or 2of Schedule 5 in relation to the employee and, where a complaint is so presented, the Director General shall, subject to section 39, refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer.

 Complaints under The Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 are channelled to the WRC Adjudication Service through Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015

However, the Law needs certainty in how it functions and a complainant must adhere to the statutory time limits for recourse to the WRC.

These are found in Section 41 (6) and (8) of the Act.

6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Access to an equitable remedy to extend time follows for reasonable cause in Section 41(8) of that Act.

It requires stated reasons to explain and excuse the delay.

Section 48(1) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides for strike out on complaints not pursued within the period of one year immediately preceding its being struck out.

Striking out of cases that are not pursued.

48. (1) Where a complaint is presented to the Director General under section 41, the Director General may strike out the complaint where he or she is satisfied that the complainant has not pursued the complaint within the period of one year (or such other period as may be prescribed) immediately preceding its being struck out.

……

(3) The Director General shall, as soon as may be after he or she strikes out a complaint in accordance with this section, notify the complainant and respondent to the complaint in writing of the striking out of the complaint.

…….

(5) Where a complaint or appeal is struck out under this section, the complainant or appellant shall not be entitled to prosecute the proceedings any further.

I am in a dilemma on this case. I prepared the case for hearing by reading both parties documents.

The Complainant signed off on his written submission prior to hearing. He did not respond to the Respondents written submission, as I would have expected, given the enormous crucial importance of its contents.

However, had the complainant attended at hearing, we may have been able to explore this claim further with two parties present.

Having read the papers once more, post hearing, I am left with the conclusion that the complainant filed his complaint outside of the statutory time limit permitted.

The complaint was filed at 2.50 pm on 4 August 2025, yet the complainant had signalled that his employment had ended on 24 February 2024, some 18 months prior to filing his complaint.

I have no reason before me why it was not filed sooner.

I cannot derive jurisdiction for this complaint as it has been received outside the permitted parameters permitted as set down in Section 41 (6) of the Act.

No application under Section 41(8) would save it.

I have reviewed the Respondent reliance on the Red Chair Recruitment and Tim Walshe case from the Labour Court, 2019.

The then Deputy Chair, Ms ODonnell heard an application for extension of time through reasonable cause based on waiting for a P45 to emerge.

The Court was not minded granting the extension of time as the complainant left employment in November 2017 and filed his complaint the following August 2018.

I am also mindful that explorations on the parameters on the “temporary “nature of Agency employment have been considered recently in a trio of cases at the Danish Supreme Court

BS-60017/2024 -HJR Danish Business as agent for Flair Group A/S (formerly Adecco A/S) against HK Denmark as agent for A.

Returning to the instant case, the margin between leaving employment and filing the complaint is far more pronounced than Walshe and no equitable remedy will save it. The complaint was filed almost 18 months after the employment ended.

I find that the claim is manifestly out of time.

The complainant has not pursued his claim within one year prior to today. He did not attend the hearing set for September 4, 2026, nor did he give reasons for that nonattendance.

He did not present evidence in the case. The claim is manifestly out of time.

Consequently, I have decided to strike out the claim in accordance with the provisions of Section.

48(1) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.

CA-0007045-001

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 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary   Agency Work) Act, 2012, requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

 The complaint was filed almost 18 months after the employment ended.

I find that the claim is manifestly out of time.

The complainant has not pursued his claim within one year prior to today. He did not attend the hearing set for September 4, 2026, nor did he give reasons for that nonattendance.

He did not present evidence in the case. The claim is manifestly out of time.

Consequently, I have decided to strike out the claim in accordance with the provisions of Section.

48(1) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.

Claim struck out Section 48(1) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.