FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 15(1), PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES (FIXED-TERM WORK) ACT, 2003 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MS SARAH HAYES (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioner’s Decision r-118539-FT-11.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 25thJanuary 2013. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26thJune 2013. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal from the decision of a Rights Commissioner in a complaint by Sarah Hayes, (the Claimant) represented by SIPTU, against her employer, Dublin City University (the Respondent), under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 (the Act). The Rights Commissioner had found that the Claimant was not a fixed-term employee at the time the complaint was presented. Accordingly he declined jurisdiction in the case.
The circumstances giving rise to this complaint are as follows: -
The Claimant presented a complaint to a Rights Commissioner in 2011 claiming that she became entitled to a contract of indefinite duration by operation of s.9 of the Act. In a decision dated 21stJuly 2011 the Rights Commissioner found that the claim as presented was well founded. The Rights Commissioner stated that he “awarded the Claimant a contract of indefinite duration”. That decision was not appealed on its merits.
A dispute subsequently arose concerning the effect of the Rights Commissioner’s decision, and in particular the terms of the contract of indefinite duration to which the Claimant became entitled. An application was subsequently made to the Court under s.15(8) of the Act seeking enforcement of the Rights Commissioner decision. On being informed by the Court that it had no authority to vary the terms of the Rights Commissioner decision on foot of the application under s.15(8) of the Act the Claimant withdrew her application.
On 30thNovember 2011 the Claimant presented a fresh application to a Rights Commissioner. As stated above, the Rights Commissioner found that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
It is clear to the Court that the matter being pursued by the Claimant is, in effect, directed at reopening the case dealt with by a Rights Commissioner in the decision dated 21stJuly 2011. That decision became final when the time for bringing an appeal passed. While an application had been brought under s.15(8) of the Act that application was withdrawn.
The Court has no jurisdiction to reopen the case dealt with by the Rights Commissioner in July 2011. That decision is final and the time for bringing an appeal has long since passed.
The matter is not properly before the Court and it declines jurisdiction to entertain the within appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
8th July, 2013.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.