FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 83, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2011 PARTIES : IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC) - AND - JOHN HEALY DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal under Section 83 of The Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2011.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal under Section 83 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th June 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Mr John Healy (hereafter referred to as the Complainant) against a preliminary Decision of the Equality Tribunal in his claims against Irish Life Assurance PLC t/a Irish Life (hereafter referred to as the Respondent) under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 (the Acts).
The Complainant’s claim concerned the cessation of payments to him under the Respondent’s Income Protection Plan Benefit with effect from 31stJanuary 2010 when he was deemed fit to return to work and its instructions to him to return to work from
1stFebruary 2010. This was communicated in a letter from the Respondent’s Senior HR Specialist on 7thJanuary 2010. The Complainant claimed that this action by the Respondent constituted discrimination on disability, age and marital status grounds. The Respondent denied these allegations.
He referred his claim under the Acts to the Equality Tribunal on 18thMay 2012.
In the Decision under appeal the Equality Officer decided, by way of a preliminary Decision, that the Complainant herein was estopped from pursuing his claims due to the fact that he had entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Respondent on 4thMay 2011,under which he has compromised all claims against the Respondent relating to and/or arising out of his employment with the Respondent. Accordingly, the Equality Officer held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
In this appeal the Court must determine the preliminary question of whether the decision of the Equality Tribunal on the question of jurisdiction was correct.
In submitting its submission to the Court on the appeal the Respondent inadvertently referred to an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 instead of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 to 2011, this was rectified on the day of the hearing when an amended version was furnished to the Court. Other than a correction of the relevant legislation the submission was the same. At the hearing the Complainant was provided with a recess in order to have the opportunity to examine the new submission made by the Respondent. The previous submissions of both parties had been furnished to each party prior to the hearing. On the day of the hearing both the Complainant’s and the Respondent’s submission were read into the record of the Court.
Position of the Parties
- •The Respondent’s Case
Mr David P. Boyle Solicitors on behalf of the Respondent informed the Court that on the 25thJanuary 2000 the Complainant issued High Court proceedings against the Respondent which were compromised on 4th May 2011 onfoot of a written Settlement Agreement duly signed by the Complainant and signed on behalf of the Respondent on the 4thMay 2011. Under the terms of the written Settlement Agreement the Complainant agreed to accept the sum of €30,050 and this was duly paid to him, plus a sum of €10,000 to his Solicitors. The terms of the Agreement stated as follows:-
- "without admission of liability the Defendant in consideration of settlement of the above proceedings and the settlement of (i) all claims by the Plaintiff against Irish Life in respect of his employment and termination of the same as of 5thMay 2011 and permanent health insurance, (ii) all claims by Irish Life against the Plaintiff in respect of his employment and termination of same as of 5thMay 2011 and permanent health insurance…”
Mr Boyle contended that as the settlement of the High Court proceedings issued by the Complainant against the Respondent was settled in full in respect of all claims arising from his employment and the termination of his employment, it was not open to the Complainant to attempt to resurrect those claims at this point. He submitted that the Complainant is now estopped from pursing his complaint under the Acts as the Settlement Agreement entered into on 4thMay 2011 involved a clear and unequivocal promise by him for which he was compensated by a payment from the Respondent of €40,050.
In support of his contention Mr Boyle citedDoran v Thompson[1978] IR
223 at 230 where the Supreme Court stated per Griffin J. as follows:-
- "Where one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the otheraclear and unambiguous promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on accordingly, and the other party has acted on it by altering his position to his detriment, it is well settled that the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to their previous legal relationsasif no such promise or assurance had been made by him, and that he may be restrained in equity from acting inconsistently with such promise or assurance”
Mr Boyle held that the 4thMay 2011 Settlement Agreement terms were clear and unequivocal and were voluntarily entered into by the Complainant who had the benefit of legal advice from his Solicitors, Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel on the day. Therefore, he is now estopped from pursuing any claim against the Respondent with regard to matters relating to his employment and the termination of his employment with the Respondent.
- •The Complainant’s Case
The Complainant asserted that in his view the Court has jurisdiction to investigate his complaint.He submitted that the Respondent shouldnot have knowingly used 25 years of employment rightsto settle a personal injury claim. He maintained that the Respondent could not rely on the Settlement Agreement ifit did notspecificallypoint out that he was surrendering his rights under equality legislation.
He disputed that these settlement terms were severance terms and submitted that it was statutory redundancy for which the Respondent asked him to sign an RP50 form in order to claim €19,500 from the Social Insurance Fund. He said that at the time there was an implied threat from the Respondent of being sued for claiming income protection.
The Complainant told the Court that he was under pressure when the terms were being negotiated and he sought to impugn the terms of the Settlement Agreement with his solicitors shortly afterwards and has attempted to challenge it since. He said that due to his financial situation caused by his suspension without pay for a period of eighteen months, he had retained the monies paid out under the Settlement Terms.
Preliminary Issue – Timing of Complaint
The claim was received by the Equality Tribunal on 18thMay 2012 and related to alleged discrimination which occurred in the period from January 2010 when the Complainant was informed that he was deemed fit to return work and 5thMay 2011 when his employment was terminated.Thereforethe claim was presented to the Equality Tribunal outside the time limit specified at Section 77(5) of the Act. That section provides that a claim must be presented within six months of the date of the discrimination complained of or where the discrimination is continuing, the date of the last occurrence.
Section 77(5)(b) of the Act provides that where reasonable cause is shown for a delay in presenting a claim under the Act the six month time limit at Section 77(5)(a) may be extended to a period not exceeding twelve months. It is not disputed that the relevant dates in this case fall outside the twelve months before the complaint was submitted to the Equality Tribunal, therefore the claim is statue barred and could not be saved by any extension available under Section 77(5) (b)of the Act.
In light of the findings of the Court on the status of the claim there is no requirement on the Court to consider the arguments made regarding the issue of the Settlement Agreement reached between the parties on 4thMay 2011. However, for the sake of completeness, the Court considers it appropriate to set out its opinion on this point.
The Complainant had instituted High Court proceedings against the Respondent. Those proceedings were settled on the basis of a full and final settlement as outlined above. The Complainant was represented by a Solicitor and Senior Counsel and had the benefit of advice before signing the Settlement Agreement. The waiver applies to"all claims"against the Respondent in respect of the Complainant's employment. On a plain reading of the language used it conveys an undertaking by the Complainant not to pursue further claims against the Respondent in respect of his employment. The Court is of the view that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies here. This doctrine was applied inTruck and Machinery Sales LtdvMarubeni Komatsu Ltd[1996] 1 IR 12 by Keane J (as he then was) who said (at p 29):
- "It is also clear that, where parties to a contract enter into a course of negotiations which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense, the person who might otherwise have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. This doctrine, sometimes referred to as 'promissory estoppel', first appeared in English law in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439 and was given renewed life by Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd ... . A not dissimilar approach was adopted by the Supreme Court in Webb v Ireland [I 988] IR 353."
A more recent enunciation of the law in this regard is contained in the judgment of Laffoy J inBarge Inns LtdvQuinn Hospitality Ireland Operations3Ltd[2013] IEHC 387. Here Laffoy J held that the key ingredients of the doctrine of promissory estoppel are; -
- (a) the pre-existing legal relationship between the parties;
(b) an unambiguous representation;
(c) reliance by the promisee (and possible detriment);
(d) some element of unfairness and unconscionability;
(e) that the estoppel is being used not as a cause of action, but as a defence; and
(f) that the remedy is a matter for the court."
The statement signed by the Complainant is in terms which indicate that he agreed to settle all claims, actual or anticipated, against the Respondent. The Court is in no doubt that the Complainant behaved in a way which caused the Respondent to believe that he would not litigate against it further in relation to his employment. Therefore the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement entered into on 4thMay 2011 between the parties bars the Complainant's claims.
The Court is satisfied that the Complainant waived all claims against the
Respondent in relation to his former employment on 4thMay 2011 and that that the waver included the within claims.
Determination
For the reasons referred to herein the decision of the Equality Tribunal is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th August 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.