ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044044

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Mrs. Annamarie Walsh-McDonagh	The Health Service Executive

Representatives

N/A

Mr. Eamonn Ross, Employee Relations Department

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00054629-001	23/01/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/09/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman

Procedure:

In accordance with section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 13 September 2023, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Mrs. Annamarie Walsh-McDonagh (the “Complainant”) represented herself. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Eamonn Ross of the Respondent’s Employee Relations Department. The Respondent also had two witnesses in attendance: Ms. Ann Curley, Head of H.R. in Community Healthcare; and Ms. Gonne Barry, Director of Public Health Nursing Service, Dublin North.

The Hearing was held in public.

At the outset of the Hearing, the Complainant confirmed that her Complaint Form set out the details of her complaint and that she had not filed any additional submissions. She also confirmed that she had received the Respondent’s submissions, filed on 11 September 2023.

Background:

The Complainant claims that she was constructively dismissed by the Respondent, contrary to the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015. The Complainant filed her Complaint Form on 23 January 2023.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant claims that she was constructively dismissed, contrary to the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015. The Complainant accepted that this same constructive dismissal complaint was already heard by the WRC in June 2023 and that a decision was issued in July 2023.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent rejects the complaint in its entirety. The Respondent further submitted that this complaint was already heard by the WRC in June 2023 and that it cannot be heard again, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. The Respondent outlined that there had been no material change in circumstances since the same complaint was heard by the WRC in June 2023. In support of its position, the Respondent relied on Bradshaw v. McMullan [1920] IR 412 and O’ Driscoll v. Dunne [2015] IEHC 100.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Parties agreed that this constructive dismissal complaint was heard by the WRC in June 2023 and that a decision was issued in July 2023. In recognition of the anonymity accorded to that decision, the relevant decision reference is omitted here.

The doctrine of res judicata prohibits the reopening of issues which have already been decided between the parties by a competent court or tribunal.

In Bradshaw v. McMullan [1920] IR 412, Lord Shaw 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”.

In O’ Driscoll v. Dunne [2015] IEHC 100 it was held that:

“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”.

I am satisfied that the WRC meets the criteria set out in O’ Driscoll v. Dunne. I am also satisfied that the complaint before me is identical to the complaint that was before the WRC in June 2023 and that the WRC issued a decision regarding the complaint in July 2023. In these circumstances, I find that the doctrine of res judicata applies and the Complainant is estopped from bringing this complaint.

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015, requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I find that the doctrine of res judicata applies and the Complainant is estopped from bringing this complaint.

Dated: 26/September/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman

Key Words:

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015, Res judicata.