CJD233

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00027282 (CA-00034771-007)

BACKGROUND:
The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 20 January 2021, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Criminal Justice Act, 2011. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16 November 2023

DECISION:

This appeal was scheduled for hearing on 16 November 2023 at 10.00 in Dublin. The Complainant contacted the Labour Court by email at 07.59 on the day of the hearing. The email read as follows: “I cannot make it to To (sic) the court this morning. Is there any way you could give me a call? And we can do it over the phone. Is there anybody that can say my statement for me? Can you get some monkey to give me a call [phone number details inserted] I'm not very good after having a panic attack”.

At 09.43 he emailed again as follows: “Hi, I'm requesting a postponement. I had a panic attack today on the way. It is a lot of pressure to represent yourself on the day”. No medical evidence was submitted to confirm his medical fitness or otherwise to attend. At the hearing, the Respondent was asked if it consented to the application made to postpone the hearing. The Respondent did not consent, and objected to the granting of a postponement on the following grounds:

• A Complainant must show up to progress an appeal.
• The appeal was scheduled for hearing that day and the Respondent was ready and prepared to proceed.
• Three witnesses had travelled from New Ross to attend the hearing.
• One witness had deferred a business meeting in the Far East in order to attend.
• The Complainant had a pattern of behaviour and a history of cancelling meetings.
• It is disputed that the Complainant suffers from any medical condition.
• There is no medical evidence to support his application.
• The Complainant is currently active on Facebook working as a Psychic Medium.
• Due to the passage of time the Respondent is entitled have the matters heard and determined.
  
  

Deliberation

The Court adjourned to consider the application to postpone the hearing. That application was refused on the following grounds:

The Complainant was on notice of the time and date of the hearing. The Court is satisfied that there was an amount of engagement between the Complainant and the Court administration prior to the hearing date to clarify any assistance that he may require at the hearing.  The Complainant had confirmed his attendance. He had also confirmed that he did not require any assistance on the day. 

On review of the file, the Court further notes a pattern of non-engagement by the Complainant in relation to the within and related proceedings, with prolonged delays in lodging his submissions, which led to significant delays in the scheduling of the within hearing.

The adage justice delayed is justice denied applies to all parties to a proceeding. The Respondent is entitled to have the appeal heard and determined.

Having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the Complainant did not provide sufficient and sufficiently evidenced reasoning in his application for granting a postponement of the proceedings.  Accordingly, the application to postpone the hearing was refused.

The Court proceeded to open the appeal. An appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Act is a de novo appeal where the Court is required to hear the matter afresh. As the Complainant did not attend the Court hearing to move the appeal, the appeal under the Act must fail.

Decision

The decision of the Adjudication Officer that the complaint is not well founded is upheld.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
SOC	______________________
4 December 2023	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sinéad O'Connor, Court Secretary.