Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A publicly funded healthcare provider.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA- 00052983

27/09/2022

This matter first came before the WRC conciliation services in 2022. The worker then referred the matter to the Labour Court. A hearing date of the 17th June 2022 was allocated. On that date there was no appearance for or on behalf of the worker. The Labour Court issued a decision on the matter and same was furnished to the parties. The claim that was before the conciliation services and the Labour Court is identical to the claim that is before the Adjudication officer today. In those circumstances the Adjudication Officer has no jurisdiction to hear the matter again, it having already been decided on by the Labour Court.

The worker accepts that facts as set out by the Respondent however states that in addition to the complaint set out in the complaint form, there have been ongoing issues in relation to the Respondent’s treatment of the worker since she filed her complaint. Those issues were not before the Labour Court and therefore did not form part of the decision.

 The majority of the facts upon which this application is grounded are not in dispute. It is agreed that  the matter first came before the conciliation services and from there was referred to the Labour Court. A hearing date of the 17th June 2022 was assigned and on that date there was no appearance for or on behalf of the worker. The worker now argues that since the filing of the compliant there has been ongoing mistreatment of her by the Respondent and that issue was not before the Labour Court. In relation to that point, I find that the alleged mistreatment of the worker following on from the filing her complaint does not form part of the complaint that is before me today and therefore I have no jurisdiction to hear it in any event. In relation to the matter the subject matter of the within claim, I must exam the doctrine of Res Judicate to establish if I have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute.

The doctrine of Res Judicata prohibits the reopening of issues which have already been decided between the parties by a competent Court or Tribunal.

Lord Shaw in Bradshaw v McMullan [ 1920] IR 412 stated “the overriding consideration with regards to res judicate is that there should have been a judicium. That is to say, that the merits of the identical dispute between the identical parties, on the identical subject matter, and on the same media should have been settled by judgement. The judicial mind should have been applied to it. This is the principle, familiar and fundamental”.

“The doctrine will apply not only to a Court of competent jurisdiction but also to a tribunal exercising a judicial function with jurisdiction to enter upon the adjudication and to make the order or declaration sought” O’ Driscoll -v- Dunne [2015] IEHC 100

Firstly, I am fully satisfied that the WRC meets the criteria set out in O’ Driscoll v-v Dunne. Secondly, I am satisfied that matter before me today is identical to that that was before the Labour Court and that the Labour Court issued a decision on the matter. In those circumstances I find that the matter is Res Judicata and I do not have jurisdiction to re-hear the complaint.

I find that the matter is Res Judicata and I do not have jurisdiction to re-hear the dispute.

Res Judicata.