UDD1944

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by Aonghas Brady (the Appellant) of a decision made by an Adjudication Officer in his complaint made under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 (the Act) against the Dublin Airport Authority (the Respondent).

The decision of the Adjudication Officer was made on 14^thDecember 2018. The within appeal was received by the Court on 19^thDecember 2018.

In the papers submitted by the parties prior to the hearing of the Court the Appellant asserted that he remains an employee of the Respondent.

The Respondent submitted as a preliminary issue that the within appeal was made outside the time limit specified in the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 (the Act of 2015) at Section 44(3).

The papers submitted prior to the hearing contained a copy of a signed agreement concluded on 6^thAugust 2015 purporting to encapsulate a full and final settlement of issues between the parties.

The Court decided to consider these matters in the sequence set out above as preliminary matters, on the basis that the Court’s decision in respect of any one of these matters has the potential to be determinative of the entire appeal. At the outset of its hearing the Court outlined this proposition to the parties and neither party raised any objection. Consequently, the Court considered the first preliminary matter which was the assertion of the Appellant that he remains an employee of the Respondent.

First preliminary matter

The Court invited both parties to make submissions setting out their position in respect of the capacity of the Appellant to make a complaint under the Act while asserting that his employment had not terminated. Both parties confirmed that they understood the issue upon which the Court invited submissions.

The Appellant asserted before the Court that he remained an employee of the Respondent at the time of making of his complaint on 10^thApril 2017 and also asserted that he remains an employee as of the date of the hearing of the Court. He outlined that, when he set about making a complaint against the Respondent, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 presented itself as an option on the complaint form of the Workplace Relations Commission and he chose that Act as the Act under which to make a complaint.

The Respondent submitted that, in maintaining a position that he remains an employee of the Respondent, the Appellant removed from the Court the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Respondent submitted that a complaint of unfair dismissal cannot be made by the Appellant while maintaining that his employment has not terminated.

The Court decided that the issues arising from the submissions of the Appellant and Respondent were of such a profound nature that it would not be appropriate to proceed further with the appeal until this preliminary matter was decided. The Court so advised the parties and concluded the hearing.

Discussion and conclusions

The Court derives its jurisdiction in the within appeal from the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 which, in its preamble, is described as

‘An Act to provide for redress for employees unfairly dismissed from their employment …..’

The within complaint was initiated by the Appellant at a time at which he has asserted he remained in the employment of the Respondent. It is clear therefore that the Appellant cannot make any assertion that, at the time of the making of the within complaint, he had been dismissed. It is noteworthy but not relevant that the Appellant has asserted to the Court that, as of the date of the hearing of the Court, he remains in the employment of the Respondent.

The Court notes the submission of the Respondent on this matter.

The Appellant submits that he has not been dismissed from his employment. The Court therefore finds that the Appellant cannot maintain a contention that he was unfairly dismissed.

Having reached this finding the Court notes that, without prejudice to the within matters, the parties have in place a signed agreement the implementation of which, from the papers, it appears the Respondent remains committed.

Determination

For the reason set out above the within appeal fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
CC______________________
1 August 2019Chairman



NOTE

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