ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043707

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	An Individual	A Healthcare Provider

Representatives

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053564-001	06/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00053850-001	24/11/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00054015-002	05/12/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00054015-003	05/12/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00054151-001	15/12/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00054173-001	16/12/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy

Procedure:

The Complainant has previously brought an array of cases against the Respondent via the Workplace Relations Commission and on appeal to the Labour Court.

The Workplace Relations Commission issued decisions in September 2019 and November 2020.

The Labour Court issued decisions in December 2021 and July 2022.

Another series of WRC complaints were referred by the Complainant in 2020, 2021 and 2022. These were considered by me in a hearing in January 2023. Decisions were issued by me in May 2023.

The Complainant has now sought to advance another series of complaints against the same Respondent. These were referred to me in advance of a hearing scheduled for the 7th of November 2023.

In the circumstances, I believe it is appropriate for me to first consider whether I should dismiss these complaints as frivolous or vexatious, as provided for under Section 77A of the Employment Equality Acts.

There were complaints under the Pensions Act 1990 accompanying these and other complaints. Four such Pensions Act complaints were initially associated with this file. I requested that these Pensions Act complaints be grouped together and they were given the designation ADJ-00047807. I took this course of action because the Pensions Act is a fundamentally different piece of legislation to the Employment Equality Act and Workplace Relations Act. I believe that a decision whether those complaints should proceed to hearing ought to be determined separately.

Background:

The Complainant worked for the Respondent from March of 2003 until 20th May 2019 when she was placed on ill health retirement.

The Complainant challenged this decision by bringing complaints under a variety of acts, some complaints were appealed to the Labour Court. Decisions issued in these cases and appeals in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

While these complaints were being considered and even after they had been the determined the Complainant continued to refer complaints to the WRC in 2020, 2021 and 2022. These complaints were referred to me and a hearing was held in January 2023. Decisions issued in these cases in May 2023. These decisions are ADJ-00030360, ADJ-00032093, ADJ-0032418, ADJ-00040029, ADJ-00037341, ADJ-00037340, ADJ-00037339 and ADJ-00035260, ADJ-00036391, ADJ-00040031.

It has been determined by both the WRC and Labour Court that the Complainant’s employment relationship with the Respondent ended on 20th of May 2019. At various stages the Complainant has sought to assert that she is on a form of suspension as she believes the decision to place her on retirement was not properly arrived at. This has already been considered by the WRC and rejected.

These complaints were submitted by the Complainant in November and December 2022 some 3 and a half years after her employment relationship with the Respondent ended.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant’s submissions tend to refer to various EU treaty rights and alleged actions of the Respondent. They are extraordinarily difficult to follow but where they refer to clear actions by the Respondent they refer to matters which have already been considered by the WRC and Labour Court, such as the decision to place the Complainant on ill health retirement or the ongoing payments from that retirement scheme or the forms associated with that scheme.

I have already issued decisions ADJ-00030360, ADJ-00032093, ADJ-0032418, ADJ-00040029, ADJ-00037341, ADJ-00037340, ADJ-00037339 and ADJ-00035260, ADJ-00036391, ADJ-00040031 in May of this year.

These decisions have established the following:

· The Complainant ceased being an employee of the Respondent in May 2019. She is not an employee on suspension.

· Complaints regarding the conduct of the Respondent after this date fall outside my jurisdiction under the Employment Equality Acts as there is no employment relationship within to ground a complaint.

· Complaints considering the Respondents conduct before this date concern matters which have already been determined by the WRC and Labour Court.

· Complaints considering the Respondents conduct before this date are manifestly out of time.

· Complaints concerning pension rights and ongoing pension payments are specifically excluded from the scope of the Employment Equality Acts.

Section 77 A of the Employment Equality Acts allows me to dismiss a claim at any stage if it is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.

On review of the Complainant’s complaint forms, CA-00053564-001, CA-00053850-001, CA-00054015-002, CA-00054015-003, CA-00054151-001, CA-00054173-001 and I am satisfied that these complaints are frivolous in the sense that they lack any legal merit under the Employment Equality Acts. There is nothing to be gained by holding a hearing into these matters and it would only serve to waste the resources of the WRC and the Respondent which has already been required to attend several hearings.

As I decided to anonymise the previous decisions upon the request of the Complainant I have determined that I should do so with these complaints as well, not least because if the parties were identified in this decision it might compromise the decision to anonymise the earlier decisions.

Decision:

CA-00053564-001