Kildare's Pfizer plant avoid paying compensation to agency worker after winning appeal

THE DECISION for Pfizer to pay out €7,500 in compensation to an agency worker has been overturned by the Labour Court, ruling that the complaint was taken against the wrong employer.

In the decision issued in January 2026, the Court upheld Pfizer’s appeal against a WRC recommendation made in March 2025 under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act.

The earlier recommendation had directed the company to pay €7,500 in compensation for lack of fair procedures in the worker’s dismissal during probation.

However, the Labour Court found that the complainant was employed by a recruitment agency and had no contractual relationship with Pfizer, meaning she did not qualify as a “worker” of the company under industrial relations legislation.

The worker was placed at Pfizer’s Newbridge site as a Quality Control Chemist by CPL Solutions Limited, a licensed employment agency. She began working on 2 April 2024 and the placement ended on 20 May 2024 after she was informed her she had not passed probation.

The case had previously been heard by WRC across two hearings in September 2024 and February 2025.

In that decision, the worker argued she had been interviewed, trained and supervised by Pfizer staff, worked exclusively on the company’s premises for over six weeks, and was dismissed there without explanation or an opportunity to respond to performance concerns.

She said she received no written warnings and no prior notice of issues before her dismissal.

Pfizer maintained at the WRC that she was employed and dismissed by the agency, not the company, and that her contract was terminated in line with a probation clause allowing termination for any or no reason with one week’s notice. It also argued there was no valid “trade dispute” under the legislation.

The Adjudication Officer rejected Pfizer’s preliminary objections at this stage, finding that the industrial relations framework should be interpreted broadly.

He pointed to contract wording that allowed both the agency and the client company to direct duties, and to the reality of the working arrangement.

He found that in practice the worker was interviewed and trained by Pfizer staff, she worked on Pfizer premises at all times, performance concerns were handled by Pfizer supervisors, the dismissal meeting took place at the Pfizer site, and issues were not raised with the employment agency as they arose. He included: “In this case, the employment relationship was clearly with the company.” The Adjudication Officer found the worker was not afforded fair procedures, even allowing for probation. Citing the Labour Court, he said employees at risk of dismissal, including those on probation, must be told of concerns and given an opportunity to respond.

He recommended €7,500 compensation, but not reinstatement or re-engagement, citing a breakdown in trust and the fixed-term nature of the role.

Pfizer appealed the WRC recommendation on 16 April 2025. A Labour Court hearing took place in Dublin on 16 January 2026.

Represented by Rosemary Mallon BL, instructed by A&L Goodbody LLP, Pfizer argued as a preliminary point that it was not the worker’s employer and therefore not the correct respondent.

The Court agreed, finding the complainant was a CPL worker in relation to CPL and not a Pfizer worker.

The decision stated: “The Complainant had no contractual relationship with the Company and, therefore, the Court finds, was not a worker vis-à-vis the Company. The Court accordingly upholds the Company’s appeal on the foregoing preliminary point.” The Labour Court found that, regardless of how the arrangement operated in practice, the absence of a contract between the worker and Pfizer was decisive.

As a result, the original €7,500 compensation recommendation was withdrawn.