FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : MURPHY'S LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT LTD (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES) - AND - TOMASZ WIELGOSZ (REPRESENTED BY O ' HANRAHAN AND COMPANY SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Decision r-129139/129145/129149/129151-wt-12/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employee appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 on the 19th August, 2014. The Court heard the appeal on the 7th November, 2014.
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Mr Tomasz Wielgosz (the Complainant) against the Decision of a Rights Commissioner in his claims under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the Act) against Murphy’s Laundry Equipment Limited (the Respondent). The Complainant submitted four claims under the Act.
The Rights Commissioner found that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent and consequently found that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The Complainant appealed to the Court.
It was brought to the Court’s attention that a settlement had been reached and agreed between the parties in respect of,inter alia, his claims under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
Mr Eamonn O’Hanrahan, O’Hanrahan & Company Solicitors, on behalf of the Complainant submitted that the fulfilment of the full terms of this settlement were in dispute as the final phase had not been adhered to by the Respondent. He submitted that as the full terms of the settlement had not been honoured that as per its terms the Complainant had the right to re-enter the claims under the Act.
Mr Aidan Phelan, Peninsula Business Services, on behalf of the Respondent, stated that one third of the monies have been withheld due to an outstanding matter between the parties.
The Court notes that the settlement terms were agreed in full and final settlement of the Complainant’s outstanding claims against the Respondent, including his claims which were adjudicated upon by the Rights Commissioner under the Act and now under appeal.
The Court is of the view as the parties entered into settlement terms to deal with all claims under the Act (and other Acts), monies have been paid out under the terms of that settlement and retained by the Complainant, then he is precluded from pursuing his present claim and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court is of the opinion that the remaining dispute between the parties is the outstanding element of the settlement terms. In such circumstances the Court is of the view that this is not the appropriate forum for dealing with such matters.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Decision, albeit for different reasons.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th November, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.