Complainant

Respondent

Parties

John  Walsh

Roadbridge Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

 Parties

John Walsh

Roadbridge Ltd (in Receivership)

Representatives

  John Walsh

 No show

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00049641-001

08/04/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00049641-002

08/04/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00049641-003

08/04/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00049641-004

08/04/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00049641-005

08/04/2022

The Complainant worked for the Roadbridge Group and had worked in Ireland and more recently for the Company in the UK. At the time of his posting to the UK he was provided with a written assurance that in the event of being made redundant he would be treated as if he had continued his service with Group in Ireland. Unfortunately, the Group experienced very significant trading difficulties and is now in receivership. The Complainant was made redundant in the UK and received statutory benefit based on his UK entitlements. This has left a shortfall as his previous service with the Group in Ireland has not been included in the calculation of his benefits.

The Complainant a lay litigant has ticked boxes that he believed captured the essence of what he believed his grievance to be. They are misconceived as the complaint is about a shortfall in redundancy benefit and do not relate to a Transfer of Undertakings or the failure to be provided with the Terms of Employment.

At the hearing held in May information was provided to the tribunal concerning the fact that on facts similar to this case the Complainant had brought a claim before another Adjudication Officer. This was confirmed by the Complainant that he had lodged a redundancy complaint based on the same facts brought under the Redundancy Act and to be represented by SIPTU. That case was heard and a determination in turn was issued. This means that the complaints before me are res judicata as essentially what the Complainant is looking for, he already has had determined by another Adjudicator; although, the heads of claim are different, they relate to the same facts. The narrative in the Complaint form is about a claim for statutory redundancy or for a claim underpinned by a contract term providing a guarantee that statutory redundancy would be paid irrespective of the employee’s geographical location.

The Complainant worked for the Roadbridge Group and had worked in Ireland and more recently for the Company in the UK. At the time of his posting to the UK he was provided with a written assurance that in the event of being made redundant he would be treated as if he had continued his service with Group in Ireland. Unfortunately, the Group experienced very significant trading difficulties and is now in receivership. The Complainant was made redundant in the UK and received statutory benefit based on his UK entitlements. This has left a shortfall as his previous service with the Group in Ireland has not been included in the calculation of his benefits.

No Show

The Complainant a lay litigant has ticked boxes that he believed captured the essence of what he believed his grievance to be. They are misconceived as the complaint is about a shortfall in redundancy benefit.

At the hearing held in May information provided to the tribunal and confirmed by the Complainant that he had also lodged a redundancy complaint based on the same facts brought under the Redundancy Act on his behalf by SIPTU and the matter was adjudicated on.

The narrative of the Complaint form is about his entitlement to statutory redundancy which is clear and unambiguous. As a lay litigant his complaint is clear and while he has ticked the wrong statutory labels that is not fatal to his claim. However, what is fatal in this case is the fact that his case has already been heard.

 This means that the complaints before me are res judicata as essentially what the Complainant is looking for he already has had determined by another Adjudicator; although, the heads of claim are different, they relate to exactly the same facts and the narrative is in fact about a claim for statutory redundancy.

I must find against the Complainant on all grounds as the complaints are misconceived and/or res judicata.

I note that in Murdoch and Hunt’s Encyclopedia of Irish Law Bloomsbury 2021 the doctrine of Res Judicata is explained:

A thing adjudicated is received as the truth]. Parties and their privies are estopped from denying not only the state of affairs established by a judgment but also the grounds upon which that judgment was based.

Such estoppel may be (a) CAUSE OF ACTION ESTOPPEL eg where one party brings an action against another and judgment is given on it, there is a strict rule of law that he cannot bring another action against the same party for the same cause or (b) issue estoppel eg where the degree or proportion of liability in a negligence action has already been fixed by a court in a separate action between the parties: Murphy v Hennessy [1985] ILRM 100.

The doctrine of res judicata reflected the maxim INTEREST REI PUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM (qv) and ensured that a litigant could not engage in an abuse of process by challenging in other proceedings, a final decision against him made by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous proceedings in which he had a full opportunity of contesting that decision: Belton v Carlow Co Council [1997 SC] 2 ILRM 405.

It has been held that the doctrine res judicata applied only where the issues in the later action were substantially the same as those in the earlier litigation or where it was appropriate to seek all the reliefs in the earlier litigation: Ulster Bank Ltd v Lyons [2000 HC] 3 IR 337. An order made on consent striking out proceedings, although final, cannot satisfy an essential requirement in order to invoke the doctrine of res judicata; such an order is not a judicial determination of the claim: Sweeney v Bus Atha Cliath / Dublin Bus [2004 SC] 1 IR 576; [2004 HC] ITLR - 23rd Feb 2004.

A party should not be deprived of his constitutional right of access to the courts by the doctrine of res judicata where injustice might result e.g. by treating a party as bound by a determination in proceedings over which he had no control Foley v Smith [2004 HC] 3 IR 539; [2004 HC] ITLR 15th Nov. The doctrine of res judicata applies to certificates issued by a local government auditor: The State (Dowling) v Leonard [1960] IR 381. The doctrine of res judicata does not restrain the Commissioner of Valuations from using a statutory system to re-open the issue of the exemption from liability for rates: Gael Linn Teo v Commissioner of Valuation [1999 SC] 3 IR 296.

See also Cassidy v O’Rourke [1983] ILRM 332; McCarthy Construction v Waterford County Council [1987] HC; Dublin Co Council v Taylor [1989] 7 ILT Dig 150; Breathnach v Ireland [1989] IR 489, (No 4) 11 ILT Dig [1993 HC] 212; Dublin Corporation v Building & Allied Trade Union [1996 SC] 2 ILRM 547; McGuinness v Motor Distributers Ltd [1997 HC] 2 IR 171; In the matter of NIB (No 2) [1999 HC] 2 ILRM 443; Limerick VEC v Carr [2001 HC] 3 IR 480; AA v Medical Council [2002 HC] 3 IR 1; People (DPP) v O’Callaghan [2004 SC] FL 8706 and 1 ILRM 438; Mount Kennett Investments v O'Meara [2010] IEHC 216; [2011 HC] 3 IR 547.

While the Complainant did not attend his Redundancy claim and in turn that gave rise to his claim being determined as not well-founded, that decision has been subsequently appealed to the Labour Court. Having regard to all the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that no injustice is created by dismissing all of the complaints before me as misconceived  having regard to the fact that they have been brought in the main under the wrong legal heading or are res judicata.

CA-00049641-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

I determine that the complaint is not well founded as it relates to a shortfall in redundancy benefit not to the failure to provide information as set out in the Act. That complaint concerning a shortfall in redundancy was already before another Adjudication Officer and has been decided upon.

CA-00049641-002 Transfer of Undertakings:

I determine that the complaint is not well founded as it relates to a shortfall in redundancy benefit not to the failure to apply terms arising from a transfer of undertakings. That complaint concerning a shortfall in redundancy was already before another Adjudication Officer and has been decided upon.

CA-00049641-003 Transfer of Undertakings:

I determine that the complaint is not well founded as it relates to a shortfall in redundancy benefit not to the failure to apply terms arising from a transfer of undertakings. That complaint concerning a shortfall in redundancy was already before another Adjudication Officer and has been decided upon.

CA-00049641-004 Transfer of Undertakings:

I determine that the complaint is not well founded as it relates to a shortfall in redundancy benefit not to the failure to apply terms arising from a transfer of undertakings. That complaint concerning a shortfall in redundancy was already before another Adjudication Officer and has been decided upon.

CA-00049641-005 Transfer of Undertakings:

I determine that the complaint is not well founded as it relates to a shortfall in redundancy benefit not to the failure to apply terms arising from a transfer of undertakings. That complaint concerning a shortfall in redundancy was already before another Adjudication Officer and has been decided upon.

Res Judicata-Misconceived