FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FITZPATRICKS CASTLE HOTEL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation for alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed by the Company. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th April, 2009. At the hearing, the Court raised a preliminary point regarding its jurisdiction to hear the substantive case.
The following is the Court's Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim of unfair dismissal came to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The claimant alleged that he was unfairly dismissed by the Hotel. He had previously lodged a case with the Rights Commissioner under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Before the completion of the Rights Commissioner process, he submitted a further claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. This case was heard by the E.A.T. which issued a Determination rejecting his claim on grounds of jurisdiction.
The Claimant appealed this Determination to the Circuit Court, which struck out the appeal.
Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993 amends Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. Section 7(10)(a) of the 1993 Act states as follows:
"A dispute in relation to a dismissal as respects which a Recommendation has been made by a Rights Commissioner under this Act or a hearing by the Tribunal under this Act has commenced shall not be referred, under the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 1990 (now 1946 to 2004) to a Rights Commissioner or the Labour Court"
Clearly, the instant case was the subject of a hearing by the Tribunal, under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, which not only commenced, but concluded and on which a Determination was issued.
The Court, accordingly, does not have jurisdiction to hear the case and must so decide.
For the sake of completeness, the claimant, in the course of the hearing, produced a previously - prepared document purporting to withdraw his claim, citing the opinion that he was not satisfied with the service of the Labour Court. He further objected verbally to the fact that the Court did not permit him to read his substantive submission.
The Court could not do so, as the submission concerned the substantive case which could not be opened until the question of jurisdiction had been decided.
The Court, for the record, does not in any way accept the allegation that it dealt with the matter in any manner other than a wholly professional one, and decided the jurisdiction question strictly in accordance with the law applicable.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
6th May, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.