Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Adorjan  Gimesi

Village At Lyons

Representatives

Self-represented 

Ryan Mc Allister, ARAG Legal Protection

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00063717-001

26/05/2024

Mr. Gimesi, the complainant, submitted a complaint of constructive dismissal to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), received on 26th May 2024.

On the complaint form, the complainant requested a reconsideration of a constructive dismissal claim, ADJ-00050008 which was decided on 9th May 2024.

In the text of the complaint form he also referenced an ongoing complaint of ADJ-000049229 (the first complaint). He also states on the form- ‘Consequently, I attached all relevant documents pertaining to this matter to my initial submission. I also contacted the WRC for guidance on this issue, I was advised that the constructive dismissal claim would likely be consolidated with my initial case. Based on this advice, I assumed that my claim had been properly submitted and did not take any further action to submit separately.’

On the complaint form, the complainant further outlined the progression of his two earlier complaints. (ADJ-000049229 submitted on 11th December 2023, and ADJ-00050008 submitted on 30th January 2024).

On 16th August 2024, the complainant made a further submission on the background to his two earlier complaints.

As per the submission of 1st July 2024, the respondent representative raised an issue of jurisdiction as the complainant had already brought a constructive dismissal case which was decided on 9th May 2024 in ADJ-0005008. It is claimed that in effect, the complainant is seeking to appeal the decision of the WRC to the WRC.

In a further submission of 13th August 2024, the representative submits that were the case to be re-heard, it would be an affront to the fair passage of justice which the respondent has repeatedly followed. He further submitted that if the case was re-listed it would be an abuse of the judicial process.

Having considered the submissions from both parties, I am of the opinion that the issue falls under section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act.  The issue is whether the new complaint has already been considered in the two earlier complaints. The issue of multiplicity of proceedings was considered in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100, and has been adapted over the years to ensure that there is a merit-based and flexible approach. In essence, a respondent should not have to repeatedly defend issues already litigated. The onus is on the complainant to bring forward all issues as part of the first proceedings and cannot be allowed to continue to litigate similar matters.

Applying the law to this case, there are no new matters which the complainant did not have an opportunity to raise in the two earlier cases. Although the complainant is self-represented, there was an onus on him to outline his case in full in the two earlier cases.

As submitted by the respondent representative, the complainant cannot appeal an adjudication decision of the WRC to the WRC.

As the Adjudication Service of the WRC is the forum for deciding complaints in the first instance, a complainant or indeed a respondent has the right of appeal to the Labour Court within the stipulated 42-days. The complainant would have been advised of his right of appeal when the two earlier cases were decided. As the right of appeal provides for a full de novo hearing, it is never the case that similar matters can be reviewed or appealed within the WRC itself. There is a full right of appeal to the Labour Court.

For the reasons outlined, I am of the opinion that as per section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act the complaint is vexatious and I decide to dismiss the complaint.

I am of the opinion that as per section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act the complaint is vexatious and I decide to dismiss the complaint.

Jurisdiction