Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Martin  Melvin

Department Of The Taoiseach

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00035249-001

16/03/2020

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 16th of March 2020.

The complainant provided the following information in his complaint form:

“I was asked to call a bomb scare into the George to assist in taking down a hack on the Garda Database PULSE. PULSE being a vital national security asset at the time was very important to State security and it flowed naturally that I would be paid for the bomb scare. I haven't been paid or engaged with by the Gardai despite numerous requests to get the matter resolved. They have treated me horrendously and I am sickened by their behaviour. I have sent in the region of 70 letters trying to get these issues resolved. The Gardai have pretty much just ignored me. It seems that the Gardai are predictably trying to prevent charges being brought against each

other. This has been going on for the last 10 + years. The Gardai need to clarify their relationship with me in a formal setting. I have not been told if I am a Garda agent so that needs clarifying.

As I understand it at present, the bomb scare may have been run by the Taoiseach’s Office but the Gardai are being referred to in all my correspondence with the Taoiseach’s Office, so I am directed to them. This can be checked with Mary Timmons in the Taoiseach’s Office who has referred all my communications to the Taoiseach’s Office to the Department of Justice.

My life has been destroyed by working for the State. They have abused me tortured me and murdered me. I feel certain that I will die younger because of what has been done to me. The Department of Justice has been given written notice that I intend to the take the case to the WRC and has refused to engage with me on the terms of compensation for what I was put though and the damage it did to my health and wellbeing.

Also, the terms above state that I was due to be paid 100K euro for the bomb scare. That is nowhere near enough for the damage done to me. I have put that figure in as I received a message that, that is what I would be paid before the bomb scare. I wouldn’t have called the bomb scare in unless a large figure of money was offered.”

No evidence of any contractual or employment relationship was provided in support of the complaint.

As the Adjudication Officer delegated by the Director General of the Workplace Relations to investigate the above referenced complaint submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 16th March 2020, I have carefully read the complaint referred.

My findings and conclusions are as follows:

At its core this is a complaint directed against the Taoiseach under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 but no evidence has been provided in support of the complaint and against the background of the complainant’s narrative above, after careful consideration, I have decided to dismiss this matter in the exercise of my powers under section 42 Workplace Relations Act 2015.

“42. (1) An adjudication officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint or dispute referred to him or her under section 41 if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious.”

There is no definition of the terms “frivolous” and “vexatious” in the Superior Court rules. However, it is generally accepted that these terms are legal terms which are often used interchangeably: Farley v Ireland, unreported, Supreme Court, May 1, 1997 at p.3 per Barron J.; Murray v Fitzgerald [2012] IEHC 20 at p.16 per White J. The High Court’s decision in Patrick Kelly v The Information Commissioner [2014] IEHC 479 [99] is instructive as to the meaning of these terms:

“As a matter of Irish law, the term “frivolous or vexatious” does not, as noted by Birmingham J. in Nowak, necessarily carry any pejorative connotations but is more concerned with the situation where the litigation (or, in this instance, application) can be described as futile, misconceived or bound to fail.

Where a person engages in a pattern of litigation (or applications as in the present instance) which not only come within those descriptions but can be said to be actuated by ill-will or bad faith, such conduct may properly be described as vexatious.”

In practice, frivolous and/or vexatious claims may arise under many guises. In Re Lang Michener & Fabian, the Ontario High Court listed a number of factors/indicia—which factors were endorsed by Laffoy J. in the High Court in Loughrey v Dolan [2012] IEHC 578 at p.7 per Laffoy J.— which tend to indicate that proceedings may potentially be vexatious in nature and thus amenable to being struck out. These factors, which are not meant to be exhaustive, are:

• whether the issues in dispute are matters which have already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, i.e. res judicata;
• where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action will lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can expect to obtain relief;
• where the action is brought for an improper purpose, including harassment and oppression of other parties, as opposed to asserting legitimate legal rights;
• where issues sought to be litigated tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented;
• where the person instituting the proceedings has failed to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings;
• where the plaintiff persistently takes unsuccessful appeals against judicial decisions.

I consider that it is obvious that this complaint cannot succeed based on the case as summarised above.

The complaint is dismissed as per Section 42 of the Workplace Relations  Act 2015.

Dismissal; section 42 Workplace Relations Act