ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052212
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Employee | Employee |
Representatives |
| Aine Curran - O'Mara Geraghty McCourt |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00063407-001 | 10/05/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/10/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gráinne Quinn
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.
When the Hearing commenced the Complainant was in a public place. The Respondent’s representative objected to the hearing proceeding in those circumstances. She submitted that the hearing related to a sensitive matter. In those circumstances the hearing was adjourned for 30 minutes to allow the Complainant to get to a private location.
In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) I can confirm that the within hearing was heard in private and the decision was anonymised following an application by the Respondent’s representative. The Complainant objected to both it being heard in private and the decision being anonymised.
I additionally informed the attendee that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effect on the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that, as a matter of expediency, I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.
Background:
The parties worked together as employees for a period in 2016.
The Respondent’s representative made a preliminary application that the WRC did not have the power to hear the complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant objected to the hearing being in private or the decision being anonymised as he claimed he had already been defamed in public. The Complainant believed that there was no special circumstances and it should not be heard in. The Complainant set out that he was working as part of a medical team in the HSE at the relevant time. The Respondent was not his employer. . |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was two preliminary application by the Respondent. Firstly they wanted the case to be heard in private and the decision to be anonymised due to the sensitive nature of the factual matrix and the ongoing proceedings in another forum. Secondly they believed the WRC did not have jurisdiction to deal with this complaint, pursuant to section 41(1) of the Workplace Relations act 2015, as amended. This complaint concerns issues the Complainant has with another employee. The WRC is only empowered to hear complaints from employees against their employer. The Respondent was not the Complainant’s employer at any stage. |
Following the hearing correspondence was received from the Complainant and a solicitor firm on behalf of the body who are hearing related proceedings.
Findings and Conclusions:
In relation to the application by the Respondent that the hearing be in private and the decision being anonymised, I was satisfied that “special circumstances” existed in the particular facts of this case to grant this application. The factual matrix of this case related to the personal lives of both the Complainant and the Respondent and is of a sensitive nature. The parties are entitled to their privacy. Section 41(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as amended, sets out “An employee (in this Act referred to as a “complainant”) or, where the employee so consents, a specified person may present a complaint to the Director General that the employee’s employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1or 2of Schedule 5 in relation to the employee and, where a complaint is so presented, the Director General shall, subject to section 39, refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer.” This permits the WRC to only hear an employee’s complaint against their employer. The Complainant accepted in evidence that the Respondent was not his employer, rather another employee. Consequently, I have no jurisdiction to hear and consider this complaint. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have no jurisdiction to hear and consider this complaint. |
Dated: 27/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gráinne Quinn
Key Words:
Jurisdiction; |