TED2312

1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00037801 CA-00049222-002

BACKGROUND:

2.The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 15 March 2023 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2014. Labour Court hearing took place on 17 August 2023. The following is the Decision of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Mr William McKeever from a decision of an Adjudication Officer bearing (ADJ-00037801/CA-00049222-002, dated 7 March 2023) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer declined jurisdiction as the incorrect Respondent had been impleaded by the Complainant. There was no appearance at the hearing at first instance on behalf of the named Respondent. However, in earlier correspondence the named Respondent had notified the Workplace Relations Commission that the Complainant had never been employed by it. The Complainant applied at the hearing before the Adjudication Officer to amend the proceedings and to substitute PFP Fire Systems Ireland Limited for the Respondent named in his originating complaint form. The Adjudication Officer declined to accede to the Complainant’s application. The Complainant’s Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 15 March 2023. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 17 August 2023. There was no appearance on behalf of the named Respondent.

The Complainant’s Submission

It is common case that the Complainant was, at all material times, employed by PFP Fire Systems Ireland Limited and not by PFP Ireland High Performance Systems Limited. Counsel for the Complainant applies to this Court to set aside the decision of the Adjudication Officer not to amend the title to the proceedings and not to substitute the legal entity who was the Complainant’s employer for that named in the originating complaint form.

Counsel submits that this Court has the discretion to accede to his application to amend the proceedings and to substitute one legal entity for another as the Respondent to this appeal. He further submits that in the circumstances of the within case, the Court should exercise that discretion in his client’s favour for the following reasons:

• 
  •To do so would not cause any prejudice to the Complainant’s actual employer who has been on full notice of the within proceedings from their commencement;

  •The entity who was the Complainant’s employer has dealt with the within proceedings in a ‘cavalier fashion’ from start to finish; and

  •It would be highly prejudicial to the Complainant were he denied access to justice for having named an incorrect Respondent in circumstances where the named Respondent is a company related to his actual former employer and both entities have the same registered address and are generally engaged in the same type of business activities.

In setting out the case on behalf of his client, Counsel relies in particular on the judgment of the Supreme Court inHalal Meat Packers (Ballyhaunis) Limited v The Employment Appeals Tribunal[1990] ILRM 292.

Discussion and Decision

This Court is a creature of statute: its jurisdiction derives solely from statute. That is to say that the Court has no inherent jurisdiction when determining statutory appeals in relation to employment rights matters and simply does not possess ‘discretion’ in the form that Counsel, in making his application to amend the within proceedings, has asked it to exercise.

The Court does not accept that the judgment of the Supreme Court inHalal Meat Packers (Ballyhaunis) Limited v The Employment Appeals Tribunal[1990] ILRM 292 (‘Halal’) has any relevance to the within appeal. In the Court’s view, that judgment does not in any way bear on this Court’s understanding of its jurisdiction as articulated in the preceding paragraph.Halalconcerned the exercise by the Employment Appeals Tribunal of a statutory discretion to permit or not to permit a named Respondent to participate in proceedings in respect of which it had neglected to file a non-statutory form. Firstly, Counsel has not adverted to any statutory provision which vests a comparable jurisdiction in this Court. Secondly, the Court has not declined to permit any of the named parties to the within proceedings to participate therein.

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal fails and the Court upholds the decision of the Adjudication Officer.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
CO'R	______________________
23 August 2023	Deputy Chairman