DIC162

FULL RECOMMENDATION

ICC/16/2

DETERMINATIONNO.DIC162

r-146486-pic-14/SR

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 15 (1), EMPLOYEES (PROVISION OF INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION) ACT, 2006

PARTIES :

AER LINGUS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX)

- AND -

KEVIN CARROLL

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Ms Cryan
Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No r-146486-pic-14/SR.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 7th of April 2016, in accordance with Section 15(1) of the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act,2006. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 31st of May 2016.

DETERMINATION:

This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal by a Worker (the Appellant) against the decision of a Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer made in accordance with the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006 (the Act) in his complaint against Aer Lingus (the Respondent).

The Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer found that the complaint had been made outside the time limits laid down by the Regulations and that the Appellant had never been an employee of the Respondent. The Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer found that he had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Preliminary issue

The Court decided to consider the issue of the employment status of the Appellant as a preliminary issue. The Court made this decision in the interest of efficiency of process taking account of the decision of the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer and of the fact that if the Appellant was not an employee of the Respondent within the meaning of the Act that would be determinative of the appeal in its entirety.

The Appellant’s complaint to the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer was made on 1^stJuly 2014.

The Act at Schedule 3 in relevant part provides as follows:

(1) An employees’ representative (the “employee”) may present a complaint to a rights commissioner that his or her employer has contravened section 13 (1) in relation to the employee.

The Appellant in his written and oral submissions to the Court confirmed that he had never been employed by the Respondent.

In those circumstances the Court finds that the Appellant does not have locus standi to bring the within appeal.

Determination

For the reason stated above the Court determines that the Appellant has not made out a complaint of a failure by the Respondent to comply with section 13(1) of the Act. The decision of the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Foley
4th July 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.