Noel Recruitment (Ireland) Ltd v Arturas Glemza (Represented by Richard Grogan & Associates, Solicitors)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 29 January 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 1 JIEC 2901
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.AWD182 ADJ-00006622 CA-00008879-007/008/012/013/014
• Date: 29 January 2018

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

AWC/17/3

DETERMINATION NO.AWD182

ADJ-00006622 CA-00008879-007/008/012/013/014

PARTIES:

Noel Recruitment (Ireland) Limited

and

Arturas Glemza (Represented by Richard Grogan & Associates, Solicitors)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Mr Murphy

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SECTION 25 (2), PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES (TEMPORARY AGENCY WORK) ACT, 2012

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00006622.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 25(2) of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 on 12 September 2017. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 December 2017. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

Introduction

3 This is an appeal by Arturas Glemza (Complainant) against decision ADJ-00006633 of an Adjudication Officer in his complaint against his former employer Noel Recruitment (Ireland) Limited (the Respondent). The complaint was made pursuant to the protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 (the Act). The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded.

Background

4 The Complainant was employed by the Respondent between the 24 ^th May 2016 and 22 ^nd January 2017. The Respondent is an Employment Agency who placed the Complainant with one of their clients for the duration of his employment with them. The Complainant was employed on a Permanent Contract (Pay between assignment contract) in accordance with s6.(2) of the Act. The Complainant is claiming the same basic working and employment conditions as the direct hires he worked alongside.

5 Complainant's position.

6 It's the Complainant's case that although his contract stated that he was a permanent employee of the Respondent the letter he received on the 23 ^rd on May attached to his contract of employment did not contain the correct name of the company. It only had the company's trading name. It is the Complainant's contention that as the derogation under s6(2) emanates from a directive it must be strictly construed. The notification he received was not from a legal entity therefore the derogation was not properly notified and does not apply. In those circumstances the Complainant is entitled to claim the same basic working and employment conditions as the directly hired staff.

Respondent's position

7 The Complainant was employed on a...