FETD251

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00046244 (CA-00057064-002).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 35 of the Further Education and Training Act 2013 on 8 January 2024.  

A Labour Court hearing took place on 6 February 2025.

The following is the Decision of the Court:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Alexandra Mia Ragauskas against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00046244, CA-00057064-002) under the Further Education and Training Act, 2013 (“The 2013 Act”) in relation to a complaint by her against her former employer IBM (Ireland) Product Distribution Limited.

The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was misconceived and therefore was not well founded.

A hearing of the Labour Court was held in Dublin on 6 February 2025.

For ease, the parties are referred to in this Determination as they were at first instance. Hence, Alexandra Mia Ragauskas is referred to as “the Complainant” and IBM (Ireland) Product Distribution Limited as “the Respondent”.

Preliminary Matter – Time limits

The Respondent raises a preliminary matter in relation to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint on appeal having regard to s.35(1) of the 2013 Act which states in relevant part as follows:

“(1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for—

 (a) making a complaint to a member of the Garda Síochána or a member of An tSeirbhís that a provision of this Act, or any enactment or other rule of law, has been or is being contravened,

(b) making a complaint to the Minister that a direction given by him under this Act has been or is being contravened,

(c) making a complaint to a member of An tSeirbhís that there has been serious wrongdoing in relation to An tSeirbhís,

(d) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act or any other enactment, or

(e) giving notice of his intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

(2) The Schedule shall have effect for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3) If the penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under the Schedule and under those Acts.

(4) In this section—

“employee” means, in relation to An tSeirbhís, a member of the staff of An tSeirbhís;

“employer” means An tSeirbhís.”

The Respondent submits that the complaint under the Act is misguided, as the Complainant was not at the time of her employment an “employee” within the definition of the Act nor was the Respondent an “employer” for the purposes of the 2013 Act. As a result, the complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of the 2013 Act and must fail.  Furthermore, the complaint was lodged outside the statutory time limit. 

The Complainant, for her part, accepts that she was employment by the Respondent company at the relevant time. 

Deliberation and Findings

The preliminary matter for determination by the Court is whether the Complainant’s employment with the Respondent falls within the jurisdiction of the 2013 Act. 

In response to questions from the Court, the Complainant accepted that she was employed by the Respondent at the relevant time and was not an “employee” that falls within the definition of the 2013 Act

The Court cannot assume a jurisdiction which is not conferred to it. As the Complainant was not an employee encompassed by the 2013 Act, the Court finds that there is no basis for her to progress a complaint under the Act.

As a result, the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Decision

The Court finds that the Complainant was not an “employee” encompassed by the 2013 Act and as a result, her complaint is misconceived. Therefore, the Court finds that has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and, in those circumstances, the Court cannot proceed to hear the substantive matter.

The Court finds that the complaint is not well founded and that the Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so Determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
14 February 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.