ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000604

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/01/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

ADJ – 00000604

Preliminary Matters

Re: CA – 00000878 – 001

At the outset of the hearing the complainant stated that the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act was withdrawn. The withdrawal of the complaint was re-confirmed later in the hearing.

Re: CA – 00000963 – 001

An issue relating to this complaint had been raised by the respondent in an email dated 14 January 2016, sent to the Workplace Relations Commission. In this email the respondent submitted that this claim, (original Labour Relations Commission reference number r-159574-te-15) had been the subject of a hearing by a Rights Commissioner on 19 November 2015, and that a decision dismissing the case for want of prosecution had been issued on 8 January 2016.  It was the respondent's case that this complaint had already been dealt with and that they could not be expected to defend the same claim before the same forum under the same Act for a second time.

As I was aware of the respondent's position on this matter I explained to complainant that before I could examine the complaint I would have to satisfy myself I had jurisdiction to hear the complaint. I asked the complaint's representative to outline his case to me as to why I should hear the complaint.

He said that the claim had not been heard and had been dismissed for want of prosecution. He stated that at the hearing the Adjudication Officer had not taken account of the evidence he had wished to produce because the complainant herself was not present.  He said that the "case wasn't heard".

The respondent had a prepared written submission. In essence the argument put forward was that as this claim had already been subject to a hearing and a decision had been issued on the matter, it should not therefore be subject to a second hearing in the same forum.

In response the complainant said that he would be flabbergasted if the WRC decided not to hear the case. He said the first claim had been dismissed.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Decision:

The case made by the complainant’s representative is that, as the complainant had not been present at the first hearing, she had not been heard and therefore I had jurisdiction to hear the same complaint. He confirmed that the complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994  before me was exactly that which had previously been the subject of a complaint to the Rights Commissioner Service of the LRC and had been the dismissed for want of prosecution by the decision of 8 January. His client was notified of a date for the hearing of her previous complaint, the case was heard on 19 November 2015, while the representative was present at that hearing his client was not. The Rights Commissioner hearing the case decided the matter a decision issued on January 8 2016 stating that the case failed for want of prosecution. The complaint before me has been heard and is the subject of a decision.  If the complainat disagrees with that decision then it is open to them to appeal.

In Cunningham -v- Intel Ireland Ltd [2013] IEHC 207, Hedigan J referred to the common law rule enunciated in the old case of Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, that “there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter.”

In O’Hara v ACC Bank PLC (2011) IEHC 367 Charleton J. confirmed that the rules of issue estoppal apply to quasi- judicial bodies.

As this complaint has previously been dealt with in the same forum and has been subject of decision issued by an Adjudication Officer I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

Dated:   2 March 2016