RTD164

This is Mr Partner’s appeal against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (r-152323-mrt-15/JT) dated 23 June 2016. The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 4 July 2016.

The Adjudication Officer found the claim before him at first instance was not well founded as the Respondent in those proceedings (see below) was exempt from the relevant Regulations.

Non-Appearance of the Appellant

The Appellant in the within proceedings failed to appear personally before the Court at the scheduled hearing of his appeal on the afternoon of 1 September 2016. The Court was not notified in advance either by the Appellant himself or by his Trade Union Representative that this would be the case. When questioned by the Court regarding the Appellant’s non-appearance, the Representative told the Court that he had only been informed that very morning that the Appellant would be moving house that day. The Representative then moved an application for a postponement. This was opposed by the Respondent’s Representative. The application was unsupported by any documentation or evidence in support of the reasons proffered for the Appellant’s failure to appear in person. In any event, the Court did not make a decision in relation to the application as it deemed it moot having regard to the jurisdictional issue that arose in connection with this appeal and a separate but associated appeal being pursued by the Trade Union on the same day for a different member (TU/16/16).

Jurisdictional Issue

The Adjudication Officer’s decision names the Respondent at first instance as “Starrus Eco Holdings t/a Greenstar/Wastepal Ltd.” The Notice of Appeal received by the Court on 4 July 2016 names the Respondent to the appeal as “Greenstar”. The title page of the Appellant’s written submission to the Court refers to “Greenstar Ltd”. That same submission contains examples of correspondence on company headed paper that identifies the Appellant’s employer as “Starrus Eco Holdings Ltd (T/A Greenstar)”.

Having consulted the Companies Registration Office’s website, the Court notes that the correct legal entity that should have been named in the within proceedings is “Starrus Eco Holdings Limited”, the registered number of which is 527552. There is no legal entity with the company name “Greenstar” registered with the Companies Registration Office.

Labour Court Precedent

This Court has recently – inSylvia Wach v Travelodge Management Limited[2016] 27 ELR 22 - considered at length the limited scope of its jurisdiction to amend the name of a party to an appeal before it. As that determination was adverted to by the Court in the course of the within hearing, it is worth quoting the following material passage from the Court’s decision in that case:

• “What is in issue in this case does not involve a formal or verbal error. Nor does the complainant's application relate to a determination issued by the court. The wrong respondent was impleaded and the union's application is to amend the claim by substituting another legal person for the respondent cited. In the court's view that goes beyond was intended by s.88 of the Act.”

• “(8) The Labour Court may, by notice in writing given to the parties to an appeal under this section, correct any mistake (including any omission) of an administrative or clerical nature in a decision under this section in relation to the appeal.”

Determination

On the basis that the Notice of Appeal received by the Court does not name the Respondent to the appeal in the same format as the title given to the Respondent at first instance by the Adjudication Officer or indeed in accordance with that of any legal entity registered on the Companies Registration Office’s website, the Court has no option but to decline jurisdiction in the within matter.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
LS______________________
28 September 2016Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.