RTD192

Background

The Court convened its third hearing in this matter on 12^thMarch 2019. The within matter is one of 18 appeals of the Appellant against decisions of an Adjudication Officer in complaints against the Respondent. Two earlier hearings of the Court had been adjourned on the basis that the submission of the Appellant’s representative was not particularised and was not capable of being associated with a specific decision of the Adjudication Officer under appeal. Further and better submissions were invited of the Appellant’s representative.

The Appellant’s representative was notified of the hearing of the within appeal by letter dated 7^thFebruary 2019. The Court is satisfied that the notification to the Appellant was to the correct address of the Appellant’s representative and was issued by post in the normal manner of the Court and in accordance with the Rules of the Court.

On 11^thMarch 2019 the Appellant’s representative e-mailed the Court enquiring as to when the hearing of this matter would take place. The Court, in response, reminded the Appellant’s representative that the hearing would take place on 12^thMarch 2019 and that he had been so notified by letter dated 7^thFebruary 2019. The Appellant’s representative, later that day, advised the Court by e-mail that he did not consider himself properly notified of the hearing of the Court in that he did not consider that the Court had served him with a notice of the hearing in the manner set out in the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 at Section 6(1). He advised that he would not attend the hearing of the Court on 12^thMarch 2019 and that he was not seeking an adjournment of the hearing.

Position of the Respondent at the hearing of the Court

The Respondent submitted that the Court had properly notified the parties of the date of hearing of the within appeal. The Respondent submitted that it had, to date, attended six hearings in connection with this matter and had incurred considerable expense in so doing.

The Respondent submitted that the notification of the parties of the date of a hearing was not, within the meaning of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 at Section 6(1) ‘a notice or other document that is required to be served on or given to a person under this Act’ and consequently the Court was entitled to rely upon its own Rules and practices to make arrangements for the within hearing.

The Respondent submitted that the within appeal should be struck out on the basis that the Appellant did not attend the hearing of the Court.

Relevant law

The Workplace Relations Act, 2015 at Section 6(1) provides as follows:

• 6. (1) A notice or other document that is required to be served on or given to a person under this Act shall be addressed to the person concerned by name, and may be so served on or given to the person in one of the following ways:
  • (a) by delivering it to the person;

    (b) by leaving it at the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a casein which an address for service has been furnished, at that address;

    (c) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter to the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, to that address; or

    (d) by electronic means, in a case in which the person has given notice in writing to the person serving or giving the notice or document concerned of his or her consent to the notice or document (or notices or documents of a class to which the notice or document belongs) being served on, or given to, him or her in that manner.

The arrangement of hearings of the Court is an administrative function. Notification of those arrangements to the parties is also an administrative notification. The letter of notification of the date and time of a hearing of the Court is not a notice or other document that is required to be served on or given to a person under the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. That Act makes no reference to a requirement to notify parties of hearings of the Court and does not specify such communication as requiring to be served on or given to a person. The Court, as a matter of standard practice, notifies parties of its hearings by means of standard post. The Court is therefore satisfied that the Appellant was properly notified at the address supplied by the Appellant’s representative of the time and place of the hearing of the within appeal.

The Court, in light of the failure of the Appellant or his representative to attend the hearing of the Court, finds that it has no basis to uphold the within appeal.

Determination

The Court determines that it has no basis to uphold the within appeal. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed and the appeal fails.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
CC______________________
3 April 2019Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.