Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Minor

A Convenience Store

Representatives

The Complainant’s Father

 The HR Suite

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act 2000

CA-00055040-001

23/02/2022

On the 23rd February 2022 the Complainant’s father referred a complaint on the Complainant’s behalf to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) pursuant to the Equal Status Acts wherein he claimed that the Complainant was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of his disability.  There were a number of submissions sent in by the Complainant which were shared with the Respondent. Similarly the Respondent furnished a number of submissions which were shared with the Complainant. The Respondent noted the name of the Respondent was incorrect and volunteered the correct company name and registered business address at the hearing on the 9th April 2024. The Respondent raised a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction which I will address in the course of this determination.

The Complainant’s father submitted that the within complaint is not a duplicate of ADJ-00043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783 for the reasons set out hereunder.

The Complainant’s father stated that he referred two complaints to the WRC on the 23rd February 2022 and that they were identical complaint forms addressed to two different entities, one addressed to a store name and one addressed to a food outlet name. 

The Complainant’s father stated that he was happy that the Complainant’s complaint against the store (ADJ-00043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783) had been dealt with and that the Complainant had received a final outcome however the dispute against the food outlet staff member remained unresolved. The Complainant’s father stated that he wrote two separate complaints but addressed the same set of facts to both parties because he believed that they were both responsible for their actions and the actions of their employees. According to the Complainant’s father, the discriminatory incident occurred inside the Respondent’s store however the Complainant was also discriminated against and embarrassed by a staff member who was wearing a food outlet uniform when he was refused access to goods and services by the said staff member inside the Respondent’s building. It was on the basis that the staff member was wearing a food outlet uniform that the Complainant’s father strongly believed that the food outlet was also responsible for what occurred on the day in question.

In response to a question raise by the Adjudication Officer the Complainant’s father confirmed that the member of staff who was wearing the food outlet uniform was the Respondent’s employee who attended the hearing before the WRC on the 26th July 2023 and gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent in relation to ADJ-00043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783. The said employee is referred to as the Concession Manager in determination ADJ-00043974. The Complainant’s father also confirmed that the Concession Manager was the only staff member who dealt with the Complainant on the day in question.

On the basis of the clarification from Complainant’s father at the hearing on the 9th April 2024 that the within complaint refers to a food outlet specifically and a specific named staff member, the Respondent consented to the amendment of the WRC Complaint Form to reflect that the Respondent is the legal entity which operates the food outlet in the location mentioned in the Complainant’s WRC Complaint Form.

By way of preliminary issue the Respondent submitted that this matter is res judicata and that therefore the WRC does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

On the 23rd February 2023 the Complainant lodged two identical complaints against two separate entities - ADJ-043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783 against a store and ADJ-00043975 Complaint Ref: CA-00055040 against a food outlet.

The Respondent submitted that this complaint is a duplicate of ADJ-00043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783 which was heard on the 26th July 2023 with a decision issued the 2nd August 2023. The issues giving rise to the within complaint have been heard under ADJ-00043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783 with the Respondent, by way of amendment on consent, named as the Respondent in both complaints. The Respondent’s retail convenience stores are branded “Store Name” and within the relevant store there is a “Food Outlet Name” branded food outlet. The named member of staff in the Complainant’s complaint is an employee of the Respondent. The complaint form for the present complaint CA-00055040 is an exact duplicate of the complaint form for CA-00048783 which has already been adjudicated upon in ADJ-00043974.

In summary the Respondent submitted that the present complaint is a duplicate of ADJ-00043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783 as both complaints rely on the same set of circumstances and facts, as confirmed by the Complainant’s father on the 9th April 2024:

• Complaint CA-00055040 refers to the same date and time as Complaint CA-00048783.

• Complaint CA-00055040 refers to the same location as Complaint CA-00048783.

• Complaint CA-00055040 refers to the same member of staff as Complaint CA-00048783.

• Complaint CA-00055040 outlines the same sequence of events Complaint CA-00048783.

The Respondent’s representative referred to Henderson v. Henderson which emphasises that claims arising from the same set of facts cannot be taken in duplicate. The Respondent submitted that Henderson v. Henderson sets out a common law rule “that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter”. The Respondent submitted that this is absolutely the case in the present case as the Complainant has brought the complaints against the same entity, he is relying on the exact same incident and facts for his claim and therefore the matter is res judicata.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted in advance of the hearing, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties at and following the hearing.

Preliminary Issue Res Judicata

On the 23rd February 2023 the Complainant lodged two identical complaints against two separate entities - ADJ-043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783 against a store and ADJ-00043975 Complaint Ref: CA-00055040 against a food outlet.

ADJ-00043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783 was heard on the 26th July 2023 before a different Adjudication Officer with a decision issued the 2nd August 2023. The determination reflects the fact that at the hearing the Respondent confirmed that it was the legal entity which operates the store in the location referred to on the Complainant’s WRC Complainant Form.   

By letter dated the 22nd August 2023 the Respondent’s Head of Retail Sales and Operations wrote to the WRC in relation to the within complaint stating that the name of the Respondent was incorrect and that the Respondent was the legal entity which operates the food outlet in the location referred to on the Complainant’s WRC Complaint Form.

The point was reiterated by the Respondent’s HR Business Partner on the 26th September 2023 wherein she stated:

“Having received and reviewed the original manual complaint form for the above complaint CA-00055040, we note that the complaint form is an exact duplicate of the complaint form for CA-00048783 which has already been adjudicated in ADJ-00043974.

It was established at the hearing of ADJ-00043974 that the correct Respondent in the matter was “Respondent named herein” who operate the convenience store which is branded a “Store Name” and has a “Food Outlet Name” food outlet within. “Store Name” and “Food Outlet Name” are one and the same, located within the one building and operated by “The Respondent”. It is therefore clear that a duplicate complaint was lodged against the same Respondent outlining the exact same set of circumstances.”

The Respondent submitted that the doctrine of res judicata prohibits the Complainant from seeking to litigate the same issue twice and that the Complainant is estopped from proceeding with his complaint.  The Complainant’s father struggled to express how the Complainant’s complaint differed from the previous complaint already adjudicated upon, however, I am satisfied that the Complainant was given ample opportunity to articulate his position.

The doctrine of res judicata prohibits reopening an issue which has already been decided between the parties by a competent court or tribunal. Case law provides for finality in proceedings and to protect a party from being harassed by successive actions by another party when the issues between them were determined in the first proceedings: Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100.

A concise definition of cause of action estoppel vs issue estoppel was offered by Blayney J. in Gilroy v. McLoughlin [1989] ILRM 133, at 136, as follows: -

 “In cause of action estoppel the question is whether a plaintiff is estopped from bringing a particular action by reason of having brought a similar action previously against the same party, while issue estoppel is concerned with whether a particular issue has previously been determined between the same parties by a Court of competent jurisdiction”.

In the Supreme Court case of Re Vantive Holdings [2009] IESC 69, [2010] 2 IR 118 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.”

The underlying rationale for the doctrine res judicata was explained by Keane J (as he then was) in Dublin Corporation v. Building and Allied Trades Union [1996] 2 I.L.R.M 547 as follows:

“The justification of the doctrine is normally found in the maxim interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium and it is important to bear in mind that the public interest referred to reflects, in part at least, the interest of all citizens who resort to litigation in obtaining a final and conclusive determination of their disputes. However severe the stresses of litigation may be for the parties involved — the anxiety, the delays, the costs, the public and painful nature of the process — there is at least the comfort that at some stage finality is reached.”

I find that the documentary evidence summited by parties supports the Respondent’s submission that the present complaint is a duplicate of ADJ-00043974, Complaint Ref: CA-00048783 as both complaints as brought against the same Respondent and rely on the same set of circumstances and facts, as confirmed by the Complainant’s father on the 9th  April 2024:

• Complaint Ref: CA-00055040 refers to the same date and time as Complaint Ref: CA-00048783.

• Complaint Ref: CA-00055040 refers to the same location as Complaint Ref: CA-00048783.

• Complaint Ref: CA-00055040 refers to the same member of staff as Complaint Ref: CA-00048783.

• Complaint Ref: CA-00055040 outlines the same sequence of events Complaint Ref: CA-00048783.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned legal authorities, the oral and written submissions made on behalf of the Complainant and the Respondent and the documentation submitted by the parties in advance of and post the hearing I am satisfied that a different Adjudication Officer has already determined that the Complainant’s complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability as against the Respondent is well founded and made an order for compensation in the Complainant’s favour. I find that the matter before me is res judicata and that I do not have jurisdiction to re-hear the complaint.

For the reasons set out above I decide that the complaint is not well founded as it relates to a complaint of discrimination which was already before another Adjudication Officer and decided upon.

Res Judicata