LCR22928

PARTIES:

SUBJECT:

​​Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00044789 (IR-SC-00001175)​ 

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 11 October 2023in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12 January 2024. 

RECOMMENDATION:

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by Liviu Lucian Ionut (the Appellant) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer IR-SC-00001175 in his referral of a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. He contended that he was engaged in a trade dispute with Vladimir Vecerin Pepito Trade (the Respondent). 

The Appellant was employed by the Respondent from 30th May 2022 until 9th March 2023. The within referral was made to the Workplace Relations Commission on 21st March 2023. 

Summary submission of the Appellant. 

The Appellant submitted that he had been dismissed without notice by the Respondent on 9th March 2023. He had not been made aware of any disciplinary issue or any case made against him. The Respondent decided to terminate the employment without any reason or notification. 

Summary submission of the Respondent 

The Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s employment concluded as there was no work. The contract on which the Respondent firm and the Appellant were working on was unfortunately terminated by the client. No further contracts were on the horizon. 

No disciplinary action was initiated, and no allegations were made against the Appellant as the employment was not terminated for behavioural reasons. 

The Respondent submitted that all of his workforce, many of whom lived together, were aware of the loss of business and the employment of a number of members of staff occurred at the same time and for the same reason. 

Discussion and conclusion. 

The Court is satisfied that no dismissal for disciplinary reasons took place in March 2023 and consequently no issue as regards the fair conduct of disciplinary procedures can arise in this matter. The Court is aware that the Appellant has initiated a range of complaints in law against the Respondent including, for example, a complaint as regards the adequacy of the notice afforded to him on the termination of his employment. 

In all of the circumstances, the Court concludes that no useful purpose can be served by framing a decision based on the circumstances giving rise to this trade dispute. This is particularly so when the Appellant is in the process of progressing a range of complaints against the Respondent under law. 

The Court recommends that the parties should, in the exercise of pragmatism and realism, conclude that their trade dispute is resolved. 

The Court so decides. 

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
SOC	______________________
16 February 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sinead O'Connor, Court Secretary.