PED252

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00050527 (CA-00061803-005)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer ADJ-00038906 to the Labour Court on 1 October 2024, in accordance with Section 9 of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 January 2025. The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by Jayden & Preston Limited, trading as Parcel King (the Appellant) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer given in the complaint of Francis Foley (the Complainant) made under the Protection of Employment Act, 1977 (the Act). The parties are named in this decision exactly as they are named on the face of the decision of the Adjudication Officer under appeal.

The Adjudication Officer decided that there was no provision to award redress for a contravention of Section 12 of the Act. It is unclear to the Court whether the Adjudication Officer, in making this decision, was exercising a statutory jurisdiction leading to a decision appealable under the statute. In any event, the Appellant appealed this purported statutory decision.

In advance of the hearing of the Court the Appellant made application for the hearing to be convened on the basis of a Hybrid Hearing where the Appellant could attend online via available technology. That application was refused by the Court on the basis of the Complainant’s submission that he suffered from a physical condition which would have the effect of not allowing him to participate fully in a hearing convened on a hybrid basis.

The Hearing of the Court

The Appellant did not attend the hearing of the Court convened on 8th January 2025. The parties were notified of the date, time and venue for the hearing by the Court on 27th November 2024. A representative from Peninsula Ireland did attend the hearing of the Court on behalf of the Appellant entity as did the Complainant and his representative.

At the outset of the hearing the representative of Peninsula Ireland sought a postponement of the hearing on the basis that a Director of the Appellant entity was in Canada and could not afford to travel to attend the hearing. Peninsula Ireland clarified that there was no submission being made as to when the Director’s circumstances might be such as to allow him to attend a physical hearing of the Court.

It was also acknowledged that the Court had earlier decided that the appeal must be convened in person having regard to a physical infirmity of the Complainant.

The Complainant objected to the postponement of the hearing and submitted that he and his representative had travelled from Leitrim on the morning of the hearing in inclement weather in order to attend the hearing.

The Court, having heard from the parties as regards the application for postponement, and having had the opportunity to engage with both, withdrew to consider the application. The Court decided that the hearing would not be postponed and so informed the parties on the resumption of the hearing.

The Appeal

The Court decided that the Appellant entity was not present to move its appeal and that consequently that the appeal must fail. This decision was conveyed orally to the Complainant and the representative of the Appellant entity. No submission was made that the Court had any alternative to a decision that the appeal must fail.

Decision

The appeal fails and the purported statutory decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
AR	______________________
20th January 2025	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.