ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049322
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Catherine Sheehan | Cork County Council |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Des Ryan BL instructed by Michelle Ryan RDJ LLP |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00060600-001 | 19/12/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
Background:
The Complainant commenced work in 2000 as an administrative worker. She submits that the Respondent did not notify her in writing of a change in the terms and conditions of her employment under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (“the 1994 Act”). The Respondent is seeking a dismissal of the case in that it submits that the principle of “res judicata” pertains because the Complainant has already litigated the matter at issue through the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the Labour Court. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
PreliminaryIssue – Res Judicata: The Respondent claims that the current complaint is related to previous litigations. The Complainant had previously filed claims under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003 and the 1994 Act, which were addressed and dismissed by the WRC and the Labour Court. The Respondent argues that the new complaint is res judicata (already adjudicated) and/or constitutes an abuse of process. The Respondent references the decision of the Supreme Court in Re Vantive Holdings [2009] IESC 69, [2010] 2 IR 118 in which Murray CJ provided a useful summary of the rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 in noting that: “The rule in Henderson v. Henderson is to the effect that a party to litigation must make its whole case when the matter is before the court for adjudication and will not afterwards be permitted to reopen the matter to advance new grounds or new arguments which could have been advanced at the time. Save for special cases, the plea of res judicata applies not only to issues actually decided but every point which might have been brought forward in the case. In its more recent application this rule is somewhat mitigated in order to avoid its rigidity by taking into consideration circumstances that might otherwise render its imposition excessive, unfair, or disproportionate.” Additionally, the Respondent submits that Complainant had initiated High Court proceedings related to personal injury, which were dismissed, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court decision is pending. The Respondent cites various legal precedents to support their position that the complaint should not proceed due to the principle of finality in legal proceedings and to prevent abuse of process. Substantive Issue: The Respondent submits that the Complainant has not forwarded any evidence either in her submission, nor in oral testimony on the day, to support her complaint of a change in her terms of employment as provided for under the 1994 Act. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence under oath of how frustrated she was in dealing with the Respondent and how difficult it was for her to receive replies to correspondence in relation to payments that were due. She accepted in evidence that she was now in receipt of payments but believes that progress had been made with regard to payments due to her because of the submission of the instant complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Application for Dismissal of the Complaint: The Respondent made a preliminary application that the complaint should be dismissed, primarily on the grounds that the relevant matter has already been ventilated before the WRC and the Labour Court. Section 42(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 states: “An adjudication officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint or dispute referred to him or her under S.41 if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious.” In the realm of legality, terms like frivolous and vexatious hold weight as legal concepts, rather than being solely derogatory. It simply boils down to the fact that if a complainant lacks a reasonable chance of success in their case, the law deems it frivolous to pursue. On the flip side, it is deemed unfair for a respondent to have to defend against claims that are doomed to fail, which the law labels as vexatious. Various indicators suggest that this case is vexatious and should be dismissed. The Respondent put great weight on the principle of “res judicata” as defined in Henderson v Henderson, and applied in this jurisdiction by the Supreme Court in Re Vantive Holdings. I am satisfied that the matter in dispute has already been settled by the Labour Court. I conclude also that the case is clearly futile where the Complainant puts forward no meaningful argument in support of her case and in fact admits that her purpose in pursuing the matter was to force a response from the Respondent on an outstanding payment issue. It is obvious to me that this action cannot succeed, and I therefore dismiss the Complaint in accordance with section 42(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. No further consideration of the substantive is required. |
Decision:
For the reasons as outlined above I dismiss the Complaint in accordance with Section 42(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. |
Dated: 9th April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, Dismissal of Case, Section 42(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. |