UDD2436

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00043126 (CA-00053519-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 30 July 2023 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 August 2024.

The following is the Decision of the Court:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Ms Irene Finnegan (the Complainant) against Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00043126 CA-00053519-001 given under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 (the Act’s) in a claim against her previous employer Harcourt Dental Clinic (the Respondent) that she was unfairly dismissed. The Adjudication Officer held that her complaint was out of time.

Background

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in the position of Practice Manager on 16th March 2020.  She resigned her employment by email of 29th April 2022 indicating her resignation was with immediate effect.  The Complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed.  The fact of dismissal is in dispute.

The Complainant lodged a complaint with the WRC on 2nd November 2022.  The Adjudication Officer’s decision issued on 21st June 2023 and was appealed to the Court on 30th July 2023. The Labour Court scheduled the case for hearing on 11th April 2024.       

 By e-mail of the 8th of April 2024 the Court secretary advised the representatives of the Complainant that they were required to nominate a lead representative for the forthcoming hearing. No response was received, a follow up e-mail was sent on the 10th of April. By e-mail of the same date, the Court received a response from the Complainant's legal representative advising that they had not received any instructions in relation to the case and that in the circumstances it may be best to contact the Complainant directly.  The Court secretary attempted to ring the Complainant directly but got no response.

By email of the 10th of April at 15.31, the Court secretary wrote to the Complainant attaching copies of the emails received and asking her to confirm who will be attending the hearing and if her solicitors were coming off the record. At 16.10 on the same day the Complainant replied advising that she had not been informed of the hearing, and that she had not received any correspondence from the Court or her representative about the hearing. She informed the Court, that she was making a complaint to the LSRA about the services she's received from her solicitors and that she was not ready for a hearing next day.

 At approximately 16.20 the Court secretary replied advising that the Court had received submissions on her behalf, and that at no time had she informed the Court that her solicitor was no longer acting on her behalf.  She was informed that the hearing would proceed as scheduled, and that it was open to her to make an in person application for a postponement at the commencement of the hearing, and to present any supporting documentation she had in support of that application. Copies of all the emails were sent to the other side.

The Complainant sent further emails after the office closed at 17.30pm stating she had not received a letter from her solicitor confirming a date or time for a hearing.  The Complainant was advised that the hearing was proceeding at the Labour Court at 10.00am the following morning. A further email was submitted at 8.48am the following morning by the Complainant, advising that she could not attend as she had hurt her foot. The Court responded advising they had only received her emails at 9.15 am when the offices opened and that in order to make an application for a postponement on medical grounds a certificate from a GP would be required. She was asked to confirm if she was attending to seek an adjournment and or submitting a medical certificate. No response was received in advance of the 10.00am the time the hearing was scheduled to commence.

 The division hearing the case went into court room, the Respondent was in attendance with two witnesses one of whom had flown in from England. The Respondent expressed their unhappiness with the sequence of events. The Court advised that they believed that in the circumstances of this case where the legal representative was not attending, and it was not clear if the legal representative had in fact passed on the dates of the hearing to the Complainant, the Court would have to adjourn the hearing.  The Court informed the Respondent that going forward it could facilitate a hybrid hearing which would negate the need for witnesses to travel.

 By email of 11th April at 10.29 the Complainant stated that she was applying for an adjournment on the grounds that she had not received notification of the hearing not on medical grounds. The Court granted an adjournment on that occasion.

 The case was rescheduled for 10.00am on the 15th August 2024 and notification of same issued to the parties. By email of 1st August the Complaint indicated that she would not have representation at the hearing. At 10.00am on the 15th August the Complainant failed to attend the hearing. The other party was present with their witnesses. The Court secretary rang the Complainant, but the call was not answered. The Court secretary left a voice message.  The Complainant did not return the call or make contact with the Court.  The Court proceeded to open the hearing. The Complainant was not present to move her appeal and therefore the appeal must fail. 

Determination

 The appeal fails. The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
SOC	______________________
21 August 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sinéad O'Connor, Court Secretary.