FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : JAMES C BYRNE MANUFACTURING LIMITED T/A BYRNES JEWELLERS DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Statutory Redundancy The within dispute was referred to the Court, pursuant to section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, by Mr Joseph Clarke (‘the Worker’). The referral was received by the Court on 7 March 2022. The Worker has named James C Byrne Manufacturing Limited (‘the Company’) as the Respondent. The Worker was employed by the Company for some fifty-eight years prior to the dissolution of the Company on 18 March 2020. The Worker was laid-off following the commencement of the Covid-19 pandemic and then informed, on 02 November 2020, by the former principal of the Company that his employment was being terminated due to redundancy but that no funds were available to pay him his statutory redundancy and notice entitlements. The Worker then referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1969. The Adjudication Officer (in decision bearing reference number ADJ-00031016, dated 29 June 2021) declined jurisdiction in the matter as the Respondent named in the case before him was (as in the within referral) a limited company that had, at the time of the proceedings, been dissolved. Discussion and Decision The Worker chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to appeal to this Court from ADJ-00021016. He has instead opted to refer in a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the substance of which is identical to that of the complaint referred by him under the Redundancy Payments Act 1969 to the Workplace Relations Commission on 23 November 2020. He made his referral well outside the statutory time period within which he could have appealed from the decision of the Adjudication Officer. Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 was not intended by the legislature to provide an avenue for complainants to re-litigate disputes or complaints that have previously been the subject of proceedings in another forum. In the circumstances, and for the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the matter referred by the Worker herein is not well-founded. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
