RPD2425

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037282 (CA-00048651-001)

BACKGROUND:

Paul Ferris appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 19 January 2023 in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014. A Labour Court hearing took place on 06 December 2024.

The following is the Decision of the Court:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Paul Ferris against the decision of an Adjudication Officer given under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (‘the Act’) on foot of a claim made by Valerie Rothery.

The Employer did not attend at the hearing at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the Adjudication Officer held that Valerie Rothery’s claim for a redundancy payment against Paul Ferris & Evita Styles Ltd was well-founded.

As Paul Ferris did not attend the hearing at first instance, he lodged the requisite €300 fee with the Court when lodging his appeal of the decision to the Court.

Background

At an initial hearing of the appeal held on 18 April 2023 the Court was advised by Counsel for Paul Ferris that Mr Ferris was not the employer and that he was at a loss to know how he has been named as a Respondent on the Adjudicator Officer decision. Ms Rothery advised the Court that she had always understood that Mr Ferris was her employer. As it appeared that the incorrect parties were named by Valerie Rothery on her complaint to the WRC, and by agreement with the parties, the hearing was adjourned to allow Valerie Rothery to engage with the WRC about securing a correcting order to remedy that aspect of the Adjudication Officer’s decision.

After several attempts by the Court to contact Ms Rothery, she advised the Court that she did not wish to secure a correcting order and that she wanted to be finished with the matter.

The Court wrote to Mr Ferris’ representative setting out the position. The Court further advised that the matter before the Court remained an appeal by Mr Paul Ferris and that should he wish to withdraw that appeal, he could do so in writing to the Court at any time or, in the alternative, the matter would proceed for hearing. The Court further advised that it was open to either party to seek a correcting order from the WRC.

The hearing

As the appeal was not withdrawn the matter proceeded to hearing on 6 December 2024.

No submissions were lodged with the Court in advance of the hearing, as required under the Labour Court Rules 2024. Neither Mr Ferris nor Ms Rothery attended the hearing to give evidence on the day.

Mr David Murphy BL, on behalf of Mr Ferris, submitted to the Court that his client had no wish to interfere with the Adjudication Officer’s decision on the substantive issue on appeal under the Act, however, he sought the removal of his name from the decision as he was not the employer.

The Court invited Mr Murphy to make comment on the Court’s jurisdiction to amend the party names on an Adjudication Officer’s decision. Mr Murphy made no submission in relation to that matter. He submitted that, in the alternative, the matter on appeal before the Court was a de novo hearing and in the absence of any submissions or evidence from Ms Rothery to ground her complaint under the Act, the other option open to the Court – although less desirable - was to make a finding find that Ms Rothery’s complaint must fail. 

Deliberation

The Court is satisfied that both parties were on notice of the time and date of the hearing.

In making its determination in this case, the Court notes the following as being relevant:

The Court’s jurisdiction in this case derives from s.44. (1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 which states as follows:

(a) A party to proceedings under section 41 may appeal a decision of an adjudication officer given in those proceedings to the Labour Court and, where the party does so, the Labour Court shall—

(i) give the parties to the appeal an opportunity to be heard by it and to present to it any evidence relevant to the appeal,

(ii) make a decision in relation to the appeal in accordance with the relevant redress provision, and

(iii) give the parties to the appeal a copy of that decision in writing.

In this case the parties were given an opportunity to secure a correcting order but did not do so.

The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to amend an Adjudication Officer’s decision. An Adjudication Officer’s decision which does not contain the correct name of the employer needs to be corrected by the Adjudication Officer and not the Labour Court.

Any appeal of a decision of an Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court is heard on de novo basis where the Court is required to hear the matter afresh.

In this case Ms Rothery did not attend the Court hearing to pursue her complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act.  The Court heard no submission or evidence to support her claim that there was a contravention of the Act against the Respondent named in the Adjudication Officer’s decision. In those circumstance, the Court has no option but to find that her complaint under the Act is not well founded. 

Finding

For the reasons set out above, the Court finds the complaint under the Act is not well founded. Accordingly, the decision of the Adjudication Officer should be set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
ÁM	______________________
16th December 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.