EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Brian Wall UD1409/2014
against
Java Republic Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. C. Corcoran BL
Members: Mr. C.A. Ormond
Ms. M. Mulcahy
heard this case in Dublin on 17 November 2015
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s):
Stephen O’Sullivan B.L.
Ms. Paula Murphy, Daniel Spring & Co, Solicitors,
50 Fitzwilliam Square,
Dublin 2
Respondent(s):
Mairead Mc Kenna B.L.
Byrne Wallace,
88 Harcourt Street,
Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Preliminary Issue:
At the outset of the proceedings there was an application by counsel for the respondent to stay the Tribunal case pending the outcome of related High Court proceedings, between the same parties. This application was opposed by counsel for the claimant. The Tribunal received detailed submissions from both sides.
Determination of Preliminary Issue:
The following main issues are pertinent in relation to this application:
1/ The realistic position here in this case is that the Employment Appeals Tribunal hearing is ready to proceed in this case whereas the High Court case has not been set down and there are issues in relation to discovery still outstanding, in the High Court case. It was estimated that it would take at least 12 months before the High Court case would come on for hearing. We do not feel that we should add, contribute to or exacerbate this delay.
2/ Any overlap or difficulty or duplicity which may occur between the High Court proceedings and the Employment Appeals hearing can be dealt with by relevant amendments to the High Court pleadings or by any other means that the Honourable Court deems fit.
3/ The High Court is more than competent to deal suitably with any overlap, or perceived injustice or prejudice possibly arising from any overlap.
4/ The submissions of the respondent seems to suggest that if the claimant proceeded with his hearing to the Employment Appeals Tribunal that it would render an injustice or possible injustice to the respondent, in the High Court hearing. We do not accept this.
5/ The submissions of the respondent are based on a possible or hypothetical result emanating from the Employment Appeals Tribunal. (i.e. whether there was a favourable hearing of otherwise to its case to the Tribunal).
6/ Comparisons are made by the respondent with cases involving the Equality Tribunal. We are not convinced by these comparisons, in that it is open to that Tribunal unlike the Employment Appeals Tribunal to award general damages.
7/ On examination of the pleadings in the High Court: (a) We note that there is no claim for wrongful dismissal or damages for wrongful dismissal which would bring this matter within the restrictions contained in section 15 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended. (b) We also note that the respondent has pleaded in its Defence that the case is statute barred.
8/ We note the profound difference between section 101 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 relating to the Equality Tribunal, and section 15 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended, relating to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
9/ In making our decision we are mindful of the following decisions in this area, by the superior courts, and the respective contexts under which they are argued and submitted. i.e. Katherine Stephens v Archaeological Development Services Ltd. 20 IEHC 540.- Mc Menamin J. also Ciaran Culkin v Sligo County Council 2015 IEHC 46- Kearns P. and Mary Cunningham v Intel Ireland Ltd. 2013 IEHC 207 –Hedigan J.
Accordingly based on the above main sentiments as outlined, we are of the view that this hearing should proceed and a full day should be allocated for same.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)