FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8 (1), TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS, 1994 TO 2014 PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (REPRESENTED BY EMMA CASSIDY B.L., INSTRUCTED BY CHIEF STATE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE) - AND - MR DENIS JUDE HAUGHTON DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00038061 CA-00049218-001 Mr. Haughton, ‘the Complainant’ was of the view that correspondence with a number of Government bodies had entitled him to coverage under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, ‘the Act’ as a ‘deemed’ employee. The Department of Justice, ‘the Respondent’, denied that there was any contractual relationship with him. A complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Act was deemed by an Adjudication Officer not to be well founded. Preliminary matters The Complainant had completed the incorrect appeal form in referring the matter to the Court. This was drawn to the Court’s attention by the Respondent. However, it was clear to the Court from the documents submitted by the Complainant which Decision he intended to appeal. The Court indicated that it was minded to allow the appeal on this basis and this was not disputed by the Respondent. A second matter regarding jurisdiction was raised by the Court with the Complainant, in the course of which he indicated that he had never claimed to be an employee of the named Respondent. He stated that he had named a number of Respondents. The Court pointed out that the Decision under appeal referred only to the ‘Department of Justice’ as the named Respondent and that the Court’s jurisdiction under the Act was limited to consideration of appeals from Decisions by Adjudication Officers. The Court noted that the Decision in question referred solely to this Respondent. As the Complainant confirmed that he was not an employee of the named Respondent, the Court advised him that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Complainant referred to matters that he said were put to the Workplace Relations Commission, to which the Court indicated that these were matters between that body and him. Deliberation As the Complainant accepts that he was never an employee of the named Respondent, he does not have ‘locus standi’ under the Act and the appeal must fail. Determination The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary. |
