PCD164

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PCA/16/2

DETERMINATIONNO.PCD164

r-146484-pca-14/SR

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
Section 8 A (5), of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2001

PARTIES :

AER LINGUS LTD
(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-146484-pca-14/SR.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 7th of April 2016, in accordance with Section 8A (5) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2001. 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 Schedule 1 to the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2010 (the Act) in his complaint of penalisation by Aer Lingus (the Respondent) contrary to Section 8A(5) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2001 as amended.

The Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer found that the complaint had been made outside the time limits laid down by the Act and that the Appellant was never 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 Act at Schedule 1 in relevant part provides as follows:

1. (1) An employee (or, in the case of an employee who has not reached the age of 18 years, the employee’s parent or guardian with his or her consent) or, with the consent of the employee, any trade union of which the employee is a member may present a complaint to a rights commissioner that the employee’s employer has contravened section 8A(5) in relation to the employee and it shall not be necessary for the employee to have at least one year’s continuous service with the employer concerned in order to present such complaint.

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 under the Act. The decision of the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The appeal fails.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Foley
5th July 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman

NOTE

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