UDD2429

FULL DECISION

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00026901 (CA-00034459-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 6 January 2022 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. Case management was held on 13 July 2022. A Labour Court hearing took place on 22 May 2024.

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Mr Warren Scanlon   (the Complainant) against Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00026901 CA-00034459-001 given under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 (the Act’s) in a claim against his previous employer  Rose Hospitality Ltd (the Respondent) that he was unfairly dismissed. The Adjudication Officer held that his complaint was well founded and awarded compensation of €487.50.

Background

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a maintenance man on the 9th January 2017.  He was summarily dismissed by the Respondent on the 15th August 2019.  The Complainant submits that he was unfairly dismissed.   The Complainant appealed the decision of the Adjudication Officer on 6th January 2022. On the appeal form the Respondent named is Jacksons Hotel Ballybofey, Trading name is listed as Jacksons Hotel, contact name is listed as Jacksons Hotel, Registered Office/Place of Business / Principal Office address is given as Jacksons Hotel, Ballybofey, Lifford County Donegal.

 The Respondent raised as a preliminary issue the fact that the wrong party was named on the appeal form, and that no decision from an Adjudication Officer existed for Jacksons Hotel. Therefore, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Preliminary issue

The Complainant emailed the Court looking to appeal the Adjudication Officers decision on the 4th January 2022. The Court requested that he complete an appeal form and attach a copy of the Adjudication Officers decision. On receipt of these documents the Court noted that the name of the Respondent on the appeal form was different to the name on the Adjudication Officers decision. The Court wrote to Mr D O’ Cuilean the representative for the Complainant on the 11th January 2022, advising that the name on the appeal form of the Respondent must match the name on the Adjudication Officers decision. Mr O’Cuilean responded advising that his records show that Rose Hospitality is not the lawful owner of Jacksons Hotel, and that he was waiting on confirmation as to who the lawful owner is.

As is the normal procedure Mr O’ Cuilean was asked to send in copies of the Complainant’s submission. He replied advising that the case was conceded, that there was no need for legal argument, they were only appealing the award, and in order to avoid damage to the rain forest and the carbon footprint they would not be printing or posting hard copies of submissions. No soft copy of the Complainant’s submission was ever submitted either.

The Respondent’s submission was received on 5th April 2022, they did not accept that the case had been conceded.  The Court attempted to schedule a remote case management conference, this resulted in correspondence for Mr O’Cuilean referencing the case management conference as secret discussions behind closed doors and that as it was a Court procedure, we should forget about holding it. He went on say that he wanted sworn affidavits from everyone.  The case management was held and neither the Complainant nor his representative attended. However, following same, Mr O Cuilean contacted the Court stating that they tried to log on to the case management without any success.

By letter of the 14th July 2022, Mr O’Cuilean was advised that the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing appeals of decisions of Adjudication Officers, and that there was no such decision in being against Jackson’s Hotel Ballbofey, therefore no valid appeal could exist. The letter went on say that where errors appear in the naming of the Respondent a correcting order can be sought from the WRC.

The Court followed up with Mr O’ Cuilean by email of 18th May 2023, to establish if a correcting order had been sought /received. Mr O’Cuilean responded, but he did not address the question. It was clear from his response in terms of what the Complainant believed the name should be, and his reference to google search that a correcting order had not been sought. He sent a further email on 26th May 2023 accusing the Court of a cover up and stating that the Court cannot be trusted. He requested a complaint form. Further correspondence ensued.

The case was listed for hearing on 22nd May 2024. At the commencement of the hearing the Respondent raised the preliminary issue of the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case on the basis that Jackson’s Hotel Ballbofey is not a legal entity and no decision of an Adjudication officer existed against that entity. It was not disputed that Rose Hospitality operates a business that trades as Jacksons Hotel. The Complainant had made his complaint at first instance against Rose Hospitality Limited and it was accepted by the Respondent that the Complainant at all material times was an employee of Rose Hospitality Limited. The Respondent submitted that the appeal should be disallowed.

The Court took a short break to allow Mr O’ Cuilean consider his response.

Following the break Mr O’ Cuilean stated that he did not accept that Jackson Hotel, was not a legal entity. He offered no explanation for why at first instance the Complainant had lodged his complaint and had accepted that the employer was Rose Hospitality and was now seeking to change the name of the Respondent. The Court asked Mr O Cuilean to address where he believed, the Court got jurisdiction to hear a case, in circumstances where, there was no decision of an Adjudication Officer in respect of the Respondent named in the appeal form. Mr O’ Cuilean submitted that he was not in a position to respond to that question as he had not expected to be asked to address legal issues of that nature.

The Court agreed to allow Mr O’ Cuilean make a written submission to that question and allow the Respondent an opportunity to reply to same. It was agreed with the parties that the case would be adjourned and that on receipt of written submissions and responses within the timelines agreed with the parties the Court would consider the preliminary issue.

On the 23rd May 2024, Mr O’ Cuilean sought the names of the members of the Division and was supplied with same. He then sought the contact details for one member of the Division. He was informed that it was not appropriate for him to try and contact or communicate with any member of the division. He then requested the name of the Respondent’ representative and queried if the Complainant could change his representative to his Union rep. Mr O Cuilean was supplied with the contact details for the representative for the other side, and informed that it was up to the Complainant to decide who his representative was. If Mr O’ Cuilean was no longer his representative the Court and the other party should be informed.  He was also informed that his submission was overdue.

Mr O’ Cuilean sought the name of the Chairman of the Court and was provided with same, queried how to make a complaint about the chair of the division, and was informed how to do that.   On the 14th June 2024, Mr O Cuilean by email set out ten bullet points none of which addressed the issue that he had sought to be allowed make a written submission in respect of. The Court took this document as his submission, and in line with normal practise ensured the other party had a copy of same and gave them the opportunity to respond. On receipt of their response, it was forwarded to Mr O’ Cuilean for any comments he might have. The Court waited two weeks, but no relevant comments were received.

Decision

The Court is a creature of statute; its jurisdiction derives solely from statute. The Act provides for the Court to hear an appeal of a decision of an Adjudication Officer. The appeal form submitted to the Court names the Respondent as Jacksons Hotel Ballybofey. The Court does not have an Adjudication Officers decision in respect of a Respondent by that name, therefore there is no valid appeal before the Court.

The appeal fails.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
12 July 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.