FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN AND DUN LAOGHAIRE EDUCATION AND TRAINING BOARD (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation No: ADJ-00007860.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim by the Worker regarding a miscalculation by her Employer of her purchase of notional years' service for pension purposes.
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for Investigation and Recommendation. On 21 August 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued his Recommendation. The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 15 September 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 November 2017. The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the employer of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation which recommended that the Claimant should be paid the sum of €10,000 compensation. The Claimant’s claim before the Adjudication Officer concerned a miscalculation by her employer of her purchase of notional years’ service for pension purposes.
In 2004, the Claimant engaged with the employer about the purchase of notional years and was given the required information. Based on that information she commenced payments. In 2014, when she was making plans to retire, it was discovered that an error had been made in 2004, she was given the wrong information with the result that she was only entitled to 9 years’ additional service instead of the 17 she thought she was purchasing. The overpaid monies were returned to her. The Claimant sought compensation for the difficulties the error caused her and the unexpected shortfall in her pension.
The Claimant submitted a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman. This complaint was investigated and a Decision given on 10thAugust 2015, which decided that the Claimant should be compensated for the fall in value of money in line with the Consumer Price Index.Decisions of the Pensions Ombudsman are binding on all parties subject to the right of appeal.The Court notes that the Decision in this case was not appealed to the High Court; it was implemented by the employer and the monies were paid to the Claimant.
Conclusions of the Court
It is a well settled principle of law that once a cause of action is finally determined by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction in favour of one party and against the other that cause of action cannot be litigated again as between the same parties. This is technically referred to as estoppel orres judicata. The Claimant confirmed for the Court that the claim before the Adjudication Officer was the same claim as the claim previously pursued before the Pensions Ombudsman. Therefore, the Court finds that the doctrine ofres judicataapplies.
For the reasons set out above the Court has concluded that the claim which formed the subject matter of hearing before the Adjudication Officer and the subject matter of this appeal isres judicata.Therefore, the Courthas no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Accordingly, the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6 November 2017______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.