Case Number: ADJ-00005397. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00005397
• Date: 01 August 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Trainee Assistant Film Director v X Productions DAC
• Respondent: X Productions DAC

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005397

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Trainee Assistant Film Director	X Productions DAC

Representatives An Industrial Relations Representative Peninsula Group Limited

Complaints/Dispute:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001	CA-00007583-001	12/10/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994	CA-00007583-002	12/10/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997	CA-00007583-003	12/10/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997	CA-00007583-004	12/10/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969	CA-00007583-005	12/10/2016

Dates of Adjudication Hearing: 24th November 2017 & 19th February 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Aideen Collard

Procedure:

The aforesaid complaints/dispute were received by the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘WRC’) on 12th October 2016. In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, following the referral of the aforesaid complaints/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into same. The Complainant was represented by an Industrial Relations Representative and the Respondent was represented by Peninsula Group Limited. This matter was originally designated as a country case before being reassigned back to Dublin. Thereafter, the original hearing date was adjourned for a short period to accommodate the Complainant who had commenced a new role in the UK. I proceeded to hearing on the rescheduled date of 24th November 2017. The Complainant was in attendance with her Representative whilst a number of witnesses including a Director of ‘X Productions DAC’ were in attendance on behalf of the Respondent. A preliminary issue was raised as to whether the Respondent referred to on the complaint form was the Complainant’s employer. Following ‘without prejudice’ talks, these complaints/dispute were withdrawn subject to conclusion of a settlement within 28 days thereof. As this settlement was not successfully concluded within that time-frame and in accordance with the terms of the withdrawal, the Complainant’s Representative sought a new hearing date which was scheduled for 19th February 2018. On that date, I proceeded to hearing and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence relevant to these complaints/dispute. All oral evidence, written submissions, supporting documentation and case law presented by both Parties have been taken into consideration when coming to this decision/recommendation. A complaint under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-time Work) Act 2001 (CA-00007583-001) was withdrawn. The Respondent persisted with its preliminary objection that it was not the Complainant’s employer, which I addressed at the outset of the hearing as set out hereunder before proceeding to hear the substantive complaint.

Background:

The Complainant was employed by ‘X Productions DAC’ on an intended specified purpose contract as a Trainee Assistant Director for a film production due to run from 20th September - 25th November 2016. She earned €700 gross per week. She contended that she was summarily dismissed some two weeks into the contract and not having the requisite 12 months’ service for a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, sought compensation under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. She also sought compensation for the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide her with a written statement containing the particulars of her employment contrary to Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, for requiring her to work excessive weekly hours contrary to Section 15 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, and for not affording her statutory breaks contrary to Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

Preliminary Issue:

It was common-case that under the heading ‘Respondent Details – Name/Company’, the complaint form referring the complaints/dispute herein referred to a registered business name, namely, ‘A Film Production Company’ as opposed to referring to the correct legal title of the Complainant’s employer, being ‘X Productions DAC’. It was not in issue that the business name ‘A Film Production Company’ was associated with the production of the film in question. However, each film production is set up as a separate company and ‘X Productions DAC’ was set up specifically for the purposes of production of the film in question and was the Complainant’s employer. Whilst the Respondent’s Representative confirmed that the business name ‘A Film Production Company’ was also used by a common Director with ‘X Productions DAC’ who attended at the first hearing, he contended that they were separate legal entities. In this respect, reliance was placed upon Travelodge Management Limited -v- Sylwia Wach EDA 1511, wherein the Labour Court found that whilst proceedings may be amended to correct the title of a Respondent, they cannot be changed so as to implead an entirely...