FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991 PARTIES : STAFFLINE RECRUITMENT LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - ANNA ZAWADZKA DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.ADJ-00005514 CA-00007674-001.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 26 October 2018 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:-
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal on behalf of Staffline Recruitment Limited (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00005514; CA-00007674-001, dated 12 April 2018) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Respondent’s Notice of Appeal was received on 29 June 2018. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 26 October 2018.
Preliminary Issue
The Respondent’s Notice of Appeal was received outside the 42-day time limit provided for in section 44(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’). The Respondent applied to the Court to extend the time under section 44(4) of the 2015 Act. It submits that its failure to give notice to the Court of its intention to appeal the Adjudication Officer’s decision was due to exceptional circumstances.
Those exceptional circumstances, in the Respondent’s submission, comprise of the following sequence of events:
•The Respondent’s business address changed on 24 March 2017 from Naas to Gowan House Unit 8, Carriglea Business Park, Naas Road, Dublin 12;•The Respondent set up a forwarding system with An Post for a period of six months from the date of the change of office address;
•The first hearing before the Adjudication Officer took place on 13 April 2017 and both parties were in attendance; (IBEC was not on record for the Respondent at this time); the matter was adjourned to a later date;
•The Respondent’s HR Director wrote to the Workplace Relations Commission on 24 April 2017 to notify it that she was the main point of contact for all cases in which the Respondent was a party; she supplied her office address in Derry and her email address to the WRC but did not notify the WRC of the change of office address from Naas to Dublin 12;
•The WRC notified the Respondent- by letter dated December 2017 and addressed to its former address in Naas - of a resumed hearing date in January 2018;
•The Respondent did not receive this notification and consequently did not attend the resumed hearing in January 2018;
•IBEC came on record by telephone and email in late March 2018 but were not notified that the resumed hearing had already taken place;
•The Adjudication Officer issued his decision on 12 April 2018, however, a copy of the written decision was not received by the Respondent;
•The Respondent only became aware that the Adjudication Officer’s decision had issued when the Ms Zawadzka’s (‘the Complainant’) then representative wrote to IBEC in June 2018 requesting payment of the award made by the Adjudication Officer.
The Respondent also relies on the legal test for ‘exceptional circumstances’ set out in the determination of this Court inGaelsoil Thulach na nOg v Joyce Fitzsimons-Markey(EET034). Having regard to the reasoning of the Court in that case, the Respondent submits that the facts that it did not receive notice of the resumed hearing in January 2018 or the Adjudication Officer’s decision in April 2018 amount to exceptional circumstances that explain its failure to refer its appeal to the Court within the 42-day time limit prescribed in section 44(3) of the 2015 Act.
Discussion and Decision
The Court notes the sequence of events as outlined by the Respondent’s representative. However, it appears to the Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made to it, that the Respondent failed to take a number of basic steps to ensure that the Workplace Relations Commission was made aware of the change of its business address from Naas to Dublin 12. Furthermore, it appears to have been very remiss of the Respondent to limit its forwarding arrangement with An Post to a mere six months from 24 March 2017.
In all of the circumstances the Court finds that the failure to lodge the appeal within time was due to the Respondent’s failure to put in place adequate measures following the change of office address that took place in March 2017. This does not amount to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of section 44(4) of the 2015 Act.
The Respondent’s application to extend time for bringing the appeal is refused. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is, therefore, affirmed.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
LS______________________
21 November 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.