PWD187

This is an appeal to the Court against a decision of an Adjudication Officer in which three complaints referred by Mr Saveljev (‘the Complainant’) were held to be well-founded. The complaints were referred respectively under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The decision bears the reference number ADJ-00007092 (CA-00009422-002; CA-00009422-001; CA-00009422-003). The Adjudication Officer’s decision is dated 11 July 2017. The Complainant’s employer’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 11 August 2017. The Court sat to hear the appeals in Waterford on 14 February 2018.

Appellant’s Locus Standi

The appeals are brought in the name of Quick Service Rest System Limited (‘the Company’), a limited company of which Mr Groppa is a director. Mr Groppa did not appear before the Adjudication Officer nor was the Company represented at that hearing. It is clear from the written submissions received by the Court that Mr Groppa – who was the named Respondent in those proceedings – was properly notified of them. However, he submits that he was unavailable to attend on the day because of a last-minute emergency at his business premises.

Mr Groppa did not, at any stage prior to the hearing before the Adjudication Officer, raise an issue with the Workplace Relations Commission as to the identity of the Respondent which should have been named in the proceedings. However, the Notice of Appeal received by the Court names the Company as the Appellant in the within proceedings. The written submissions made to the Court by the Appellant’s Solicitors in support of the appeal are substantially predicated on the claim that Mr Groppa was not the Complainant’s employer; that he should not have been impleaded in the proceedings at first instance; and that the Company was at all material times the Complainant’s employer.

It is trite law that a company has a separate legal personality, distinct from that of its shareholders. It follows that the Company has no locus standi to maintain the within the appeal. The Court has no statutory jurisdiction to retrospectively substitute one party for another in any proceedings, either those which have concluded before an Adjudication Officer or those in being on appeal before it.

Determination

The within appeal is not properly before the Court.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
JD______________________
22 February 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.