EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
PW481/2013, PW482/2013, PW483/2013, PW484/2013,PW485/2013
APPEALS OF:
Patrick Sheehan
Michael Kiely
Pat Burke
Tom Keane
John Gough
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Waterford Joinery
Mark Lenihan, Waterford Joinery
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr N. Russell
Members: Mr J. Hennessy
Ms S. Kelly
heard this appeal at Waterford on 15th January 2015
Representation:
_______________
Appellant: Mr. Tony Kelly, Unite The Union, Keyzer Street, Waterford
Respondent: Mr John Farrell, IBEC, Confederation House, Cork Road, Waterford
This case came before the Tribunal by way of employee appeals of the Rights Commissioner Decisions ref: r-128361-pw-12, r-128362-pw-12, r-128363-pw-12, r-128364-pw-12, r-128365-pw-12 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
Determination
Three preliminary points have been raised that go to the actual jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is governed by Section 7 of the Act. The section is clear on the manner in which an appeal must be initiated. The Tribunal has no latitude in this matter and anything short of compliance with Section 7 is insufficient.
Issues with notice in proceedings can often be cured by the opposing party appearing at the hearing. The rational here is that the normal purpose of a notice requirement is to ensure that both parties are aware of the need to attend and are not compromised in any fashion.
However the provisions of Section 7 can be distinguished from the foregoing situation in that the section provides that an appeal in itself is only initiated when the notice is served within the specified period on both the Tribunal and the other party. The use of the word “and” puts it beyond doubt that the appeal itself is not validly initiated unless both are notified in writing.
In the circumstances, as Section 7 has not been complied with, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals. In light of the foregoing it is not necessary for the Tribunal to address the other preliminary points raised ie that the initial claim was out of time and that any short-time involved was a “reduction” rather than a “deduction” and is not covered by the Act.
The Tribunal find that the appeals of the Rights Commissioner Decisions ref: r-128361-pw-12, r-128362-pw-12, r-128363-pw-12, r-128364-pw-12, r-128365-pw-12 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 all fail.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)