Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lorcan  McKenna

Michael Brennan

Representatives

  N/A

 N/A

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00063805-001

29/05/2024

In his Complaint Form filed on 29 May 2024, the Complainant outlined that he worked a “trial day” for the Respondent on 27 April 2024. He submitted that he commenced work at 7pm that evening following introductions to other members of staff. The Complainant subsequently sought payment for this work but has been unsuccessful. The Complainant is seeking €44.45.

The Complainant provided oral submissions.

Preliminary Matter – Correct Respondent:

The Complainant submitted that he named the Respondent, based on information which he received from those he had worked with. He said that he had not received a contract of employment stating his employer’s name.

The Respondent provided oral submissions.

Preliminary Matter – Correct Respondent:

The Respondent submitted that he is not the correct respondent. He submitted that the correct respondent is Proper Innovation Limited t/a The Merchant. The Respondent submitted that he does not employ anyone. He further submitted that he does not consent to changing the Respondent’s name. He submitted that the complaint is vexatious. He submitted that he wants this complaint struck out.

The Law:

Preliminary Decisions:

In Brothers of Charity (Roscommon) Ltd. v. Marian Keigher EDA1014, the Labour Court considered the determination of an issue by way of preliminary decision. The Labour Court referred to the judgments of Kenny J. in Tara Explorations and Development Co. Ltd v. Minister for Industry and Commerce [1975] IR 242; and Hardiman J. in B.T.F. v. Director of Public Prosecutions 2 ILRM 367 (the “B.T.F. Case”). In the latter case Hardiman J, found:

"It is often a difficult and delicate decision as to whether to try a particular issue as a preliminary matter. In a case where a point is raised which in and of itself and without regard to anything else may terminate the whole proceedings, clearly a strong case can be made for its trial as a preliminary issue. The classic example is where the Statute of Limitations is pleaded. In other cases, however, the position may be much less clear".

In Donegal Meat Processors v. Donal Gillespie t/a Foyle Donegal, UDD2114, the Labour Court noted that, seeking for the substantive issue and the jurisdictional issue to be dealt with together was:

“akin to asking the court to exercise its jurisdiction before it determines whether or not it has jurisdiction in the first instance. […] Only if the court determines that it has jurisdiction to do so can it go on to consider the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal itself”.

Findings and Conclusion:

Following the caselaw outlined above and particularly the B.T.F. Case, I find that there is a “strong case” for determining this matter by way of preliminary decision.

Having heard the evidence on this preliminary matter, I am satisfied that the Complainant has not named the correct respondent in this complaint and therefore this complaint is not well founded.

I find that the Complainant has not named the correct respondent in this complaint and therefore I decide that the complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act 1991, Incorrect Respondent.