PW109/2013, PW110/2013, PW111/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL(S) OF:                                                                                            CASE NO.

Maria Malone – appellant 1                                                                           PW109/2013

Anne Smyth    – appellant 2                                                                           PW110/2013

Mary Dent– appellant 3                                                                                PW111/2013

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

Archdiocese of Dublin - respondent

under

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Mr C. Corcoran B.L.

Members:     Mr J. Horan

                    Mr J. Maher

heard this appeal at Dublin on 19th March 2014

Representation:

Appellant(s) : Mr Adrian Kane, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1

Respondent(s) :Ms. Claire Hellen, IBEC,

Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Background

These claims came before the Tribunal by way of three employees (the appellants) appealing against the decision of a Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (references: r-122707-pw-12/JW, r-122711-pw-12/JW and r-122709-pw-12/JW).

The Tribunal received the appeals on the 8 February 2013. By way of letter dated 6 February 2013 the appellants representative notified the respondent of the appeals.

Preliminary issue:

The respondent’s representative stated that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal as the appellants has not fulfilled the requirements as specified under section 7(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. This section states:

“An appeal under this section shall be initiated by a party by his giving, within 6 weeks of the date on which the decision to which it relates was communicated to him -

(a)        a notice in writing to the Tribunal containing such particulars (if any) as may

       be specified in regulations under subsection (3) and stating the intention of the

        party concerned to appeal against the decision, and  

       (b)   a copy of the notice to the other party concerned”    

The letter dated 6^th February 2013 did not contain the particulars as specified in subsection 3 of the said regulations. Section 7(2)(b) is very specific and in this case the appeal was sent to the Tribunal but the appellant failed to send a copy to the respondent.   The sending of the appeal to the Tribunal alone does not satisfy the statute therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.  

Determination:

Section 3 (a) (b) and (c) of the Payment of Wages (Appeals) Regulations, S.I. No. 351 of 1991 set out the particulars which shall be contained in the notice of appeal. The format of the letter dated the 6^th February 2013 does not comply with the said Regulations. Whilst the Form T1B was received by the Tribunal on the 8^th February 2013 the appellants failed to inform the respondent of the appeal by not sending a copy of the Form T1B directly to the respondent within the stipulated period under Section 7 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)