PJ Personnel Ltd v Clint Maguire (Represented by Unite the Union)

JurisdictionIreland
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)
Judgment Date09 January 2020
Judgment citation (vLex)[2020] 1 JIEC 0903
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.AWD201 ADJ-00015350 CA-00019947

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

AWC/19/3

DETERMINATION NO.AWD201

ADJ-00015350 CA-00019947

PARTIES:
PJ Personnel Ltd
and
Clint Maguire (Represented by Unite the Union)
DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

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

SUBJECT:
1

1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No(s) ADJ-00015350 CA-00019947

BACKGROUND:
2

2. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on 08 January 2020. The following is the Court's Determination:-

DETERMINATION:
3

This is an appeal by PJ Personnel Ltd (the Respondent) against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 (the Act). The claim was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 22 nd June 2018 by Clint Maguire (the Complainant). The Complainant's employment terminated with the Respondent on the 7th January 2018. The Adjudication Officer upheld the complaint and awarded compensation.

Background
4

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in July 2016 and was placed with the Hirer on the 31 st May 2017. The Complainant's last day on site was the 22 nd December 2017 and his last day in work was 7 th January 2018. The Complainant states that unlike his comparator he did not receive a “greasing allowance”. A Preliminary issue relating to time limits arises in this case.

Preliminary Issue – Time Limit
5

Position of the parties

6

It is the Complainant's submission that although the complaint was submitted outside of the time limits there was “reasonable cause” for doing so. It was the Complainant's submission that he had mandated his Union to advance the matter on his behalf. The Union had engaged with the Hirer in relation to same as it was the Union's belief that based on the practises in the construction industry this was the appropriate person to engage with. The Union does not dispute that it was aware of who the Employer was, but the Hirer was the person who was around the site. The Union official believed that it was reasonable for them to exhaust the local process first. The Complainant noted the case law relating to “reasonable cause” and argued that the case law supported the fact that it was accepted that each case was considered on its own merits.

7

The Respondent submitted that reasonable cause had not been established. The test for reasonable cause had been set out a number of times by the Court and the failure of the Complainant's representative to make a complaint within the relevant time period did not meet the test of “reasonable cause”. The Respondent submitted that the fact that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT