FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 PARTIES : WORLD 2000 (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MR PATRICK BOLAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH FILM WORKERS ASSOCIATION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer's Decision No(s)ADJ-00028394, CA-00036459-002 This is an appeal by Mr Patrick Boland (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00028394, dated 2 December 2021) under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer found the complaint to be statute-barred. Notice of Appeal was received on 10 December 2021. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 10 August 2022. Preliminary Issues A number of preliminary issues were canvassed on behalf of the Respondent in their written submission to the Court. Firstly, it is submitted that the Complainant had impleaded an incorrect Respondent for two reasons: (a) there is no registered entity with the name ‘World 2000’; there is a entity registered with the Companies Registration Office under the name ‘World 2000 Entertainment Limited’; and (b) the Complainant was at no time employed by World 2000 Entertainment Limited. The Respondent further submits that the Complainant, at the material time, was employed by VK Six Productions DAC and his employment with that company ceased on 5 October 2018. The Complainant referred his complaint against World 2000 under the Act to the Workplace Relations Commission on 30 May 2020. In the Respondent’s submission, had the Complainant impleaded the correct Respondent in his proceedings they would, nevertheless, have been initiated outside the statutory timeframe for doing so. The Complainant was represented by Ms Liz Murray of the Irish Film Workers Association. Ms Murray was invited to address the Court in relation to the preliminary issues raised on behalf of the Respondent. Ms Murray informed the Court that she had made a typographical error when referring the originating complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. She noted that the Adjudication Officer, in issuing his decision, had named the Respondent as World 2000 notwithstanding her request to him to amend the title of proceedings to reflect the correct form of the Respondent’s name. Ms Murray told the Court that her understanding was that the Complainant, when appealing to the Court from a decision of an Adjudication Officer, was obliged to refer to the Parties’ names as they appeared on the face of the decision in question. As to the question of whether or not the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent within the meaning of the Act, Ms Murray accepted that the burden of proof rested on her to demonstrate that her member qualified under the Act when this matter was disputed by the Respondent. Ms Murray told the Court that she was unable to produce any evidence to establish that there had been an employment relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, other than a collective agreement in place between the Respondent and the Irish Film Workers Association. Ms Murray informed the Court that the Complainant had made a data access request to the Respondent under the General Data Protection Regulation and the Respondent’s failure to comply with the request was the subject of a separate complaint to the Data Protection Commission. Documents indicating the Complainant had entered into a series of employment engagements with VK Six Productions DAC during 2017 and 2018 were opened before the Court. The Complainant confirmed to the Court that his signature appeared in several locations on those documents. He also confirmed that his final engagement with VK Six Productions DAC terminated on 5 October 2018. Discussion and Decision The Respondent denies that it ever employed the Complainant. The burden is, therefore, on the Complainant to establish that he was employed by the named Respondent within the meaning of the Act. The Complainant’s Representative told the Court that she was unable to produce any evidence that could establish the existence of such a relationship. It follows, therefore, that the appeal fails for this reason. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly. The Court so determines.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary. |