Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

  Self-Represented

No Appearance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

CA-00061167-001

23/01/2024

On the 23rd January 2024 the Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 15th April 2024.

On 15th April 2024, prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent sent an email communication to the WRC, copied to the Complainant, seeking a postponement of the scheduled hearing on the basis that it had only become aware on the 10th April 2024 of the referral of the complaint to the WRC and that the case had been scheduled for hearing on the 15th April 2024. At the time the hearing was to commence it was apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival, however. The Complainant was in attendance and I opened the hearing.

The Complainant confirmed that he was on notice of the Respondent’s postponement application. He stated that as far as he was concerned the Respondent was on notice of the complaint and that the matter should proceed in its absence.

It was noted by the Adjudication Officer that the name of employer on the WRC Complaint Form differed from the name of the Applicant/Respondent on the WRC Postponement Application Form. A further issue arose in that the Complainant referred his complaint to the WRC under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 however the narrative on the WRC Complaint Form indicated a different position.

While I was bringing the Complainant through the WRC Complaint Form with a view to ascertaining whether the correct legal entity had been named on the said form and whether the correspondence sent by the WRC to the Respondent on the 25th January 2024, the 6th February 2024 and the 1st March 2024 was sent to the correct legal entity at its registered office or place of business and whilst I was seeking confirmation of the nature of the Complainant’s complaint, the Complainant became extremely irate, aggressive and behaved in a threatening manner. The Complainant would not answer the questions I asked him. He stated that he was not participating in the hearing any further and that he was leaving. He proceeded to photograph and/or video me despite this not being permitted. Indeed there is a sign on the wall of the hearing room stating that “WRC - No Photography, Video or Voice Recording Permitted”.  The Complainant engaged in a repeated personal attack including making insults of a highly personal nature. I warned him to stop repeatedly. Notwithstanding, he continued the onslaught of personal attacks and insults. As I felt the situation had become unsafe and the Complainant’s behaviour was wholly inappropriate and unacceptable and I took the decision to terminate the hearing.

The Adjudication Officer was in the process of confirming the matters set out on the WRC Complaint Form and the nature of the Complainant’s complaint by reference to the narrative on the said form but was unable to do so because of the Complainant’s aggressive and threatening behaviour.

The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint.  Notice of the hearing arrangements was sent to the Respondent on the 1st March 2024. On the morning of the 15th April 2024 the WRC received a postponement application by email from a different legal entity then the one named by the Complainant on the WRC Complaint Form. The Respondent did not attend the hearing in order to make the postponement application in person.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted in advance of the hearing, the oral submissions made by Complainant at the hearing and relevant case law.

In Walsh v. Minister for Justice [2019] IESC 15, O’Donnell J. (as he then was) stated:

“…it is central to a court’s capacity to administer justice that it should be capable of maintaining order.  This in turn allows competing claims - sometimes highly charged, and always of importance to the participants - to be ventilated, fairly and dispassionately considered, and adjudicated upon.  As was said long ago, of all the places where law and order must be maintained, the first place is in the courtrooms themselves.  The administration of justice demands on parties that they trust this system and accept its outcomes.  Parties are required to accept the decision of the court on the case itself and on intermediate issues, even when they strongly disagree.”  

More recently, in AmmiBurke v. An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission (Respondents) and Arthur Cox LLP (Notice Party) [2024] IECA 105 Noonan J. stated that:

 “[t]he right of access to the court is not absolute and brings with it certain obligations.  Parties who are not prepared to assume those obligations may find themselves forfeiting that right of access… The integrity of the court process requires the court to guard and relieve against abuse where it occurs.  The court’s inherent jurisdiction entitles it to protect against abuse by making such order as the justice of the case requires.  That includes, in rare and exceptional instances, a power to strike out and/or dismiss a claim - see for example Tracey v Burton [2016] IESC 16 and W.L. Construction Limited v Chawke [2016] IEHC 539… … A judge must be afforded a wide margin of discretion to control his or her own court in the face of abusive conduct… I cannot see how it can be said that the court had somehow a continuing obligation to determine the litigation on the merits in circumstances where the party bringing that litigation was actively pursuing the objective of preventing a fair hearing from taking place.”

This is a complaint pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The adjudication of the complaint is the occasion in which evidence is presented and tested to ascertain whether the complaint is well-founded. The Respondent emailed the WRC on the morning of the 15th April 2023 in advance of the hearing attaching a WRC Postponement Application Form. The Complainant attended the hearing. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.  I did not have an opportunity to adjudicate upon the Respondent’s postponement application. The Complainant failed to articulate and particularise his complaint. The Complainant’s behaviour as detailed above prevented the process of adjudication from continuing its course. I cannot, therefore, find that the complaint is well-founded, and I formally decide that it is not well-founded.

For the reasons set out above I decide that the complaint is not well-founded.