Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Colm McNamee

Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection

Representatives

Self represented

David Dodd, BL

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006

CA-00016557-001

30/12/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00016557-002

30/12/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00016557-004

30/12/2017

The Complainant submitted a number of complaints against the Respondent.   The Respondent contends that the complaints are misconceived, that the issue of the Respondent not being the employer of the Complainant has already been decided by Decision ref: Adj-00006247 and the complaints should be dismissed as the matters complained of are res judicata.

There was a brief hearing into these complaints held on 26th September 2018 at which the Respondent sought, as a preliminary issue, to have the complaints dismissed as the matters complained of were res judicata. The hearing concluded with the parties being informed that the matter would be considered by the Adjudicator and that if necessary the hearing would be re-convened. In other words, if the Respondent’s contention that the matters complained of were res judicata failed, then the hearing would re-convene. The Complainant was given the opportunity to rebut the Respondent’s arguments and no further submission was received.   I therefore make it clear that I base my findings and decision on the sole preliminary point of whether the complaints are res judicata.

In Adjudication Decision ref: Adj-00006247, the Respondent was found not to be the employer of the Complainant and the complaints in that case were found to have been misconceived. Essentially in this instant case, by citing the same Respondent as the Respondent in that case, the Complainant seeks to make the same claim regarding the status of the Respondent.

The term “res judicata” also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for “a matter (already) judged”. The doctrine of res judicata prohibits reopening an issue which has already been decided between the parties by a competent court or tribunal. Case law provides for finality in proceedings and to protect a party from being harassed by successive actions by another party when the issues between them were determined in the first proceedings (Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100). The maxim “interest republicae ut sit finis litium” translates as “it is in the public interest thatthere be an end to litigation”. This maxim is routinely applied by Irish courts to ensure inter alia that attempts by new litigation (rather than by appeal) to attack collaterally a court’s findings will generally be prevented as an abuse of process. In this instant case, I find that the Respondent is entitled to be a protected party from being harassed by successive actions by the Complainant and it is not in the public interest to convene successive hearings on the same issue.   I find the complaints are res judicata where the matter of the Respondent not being the employer of the complainant has already been decided and I find the complaints to be not well founded.