Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jake  Branagan ( No Appearance)

Christopher Jackson (Kiltegan) Ltd Machiened Timber Specicalists (Mts)

Representatives

Millett & Matthews Solicitors Millett & Matthews Solicitors

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-00071831-001

23/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071831-002

23/05/2025

The Complainant filed two complaints pursuant to the section 27  Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 an Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The Complainant did not appear to prosecute the complaints. 

There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Complainant.

Mr. Matthews on behalf of the Respondent made an application to dismiss the claim CA 00071831 -002 for want of prosecution and CA 00071831 -001 based on the fact that the matter is Res Judicata having been decided in March 2025 in ADJ 55545.

CA – 00071831-001

The Complainant referred a complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 alleging failures by the Respondent in relation to his written terms of employment.

At the hearing of the present complaint, it emerged that the Complainant had previously brought a complaint against the same Respondent under the same legislative provisions in ADJ-55545. Following a hearing of that complaint, a decision issued in favour of the Complainant.

The Respondent was afforded an opportunity to address the issue of whether the present complaint is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.

Having examined the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the factual matrix underpinning the present complaint is identical to that which formed the basis of complaint ADJ-55545. The parties are the same, the alleged contraventions arise from the same employment relationship, and the matters complained of are the same as those previously adjudicated upon.

The doctrine of res judicata is a long-established principle of law which provides that a matter that has been finally determined by a competent tribunal cannot be litigated again between the same parties. The principle serves the interests of finality in litigation and the efficient administration of justice. It encompasses both cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel, preventing parties from re-opening matters that have already been determined.

I am satisfied that the earlier complaint (ADJ-55545) was heard and determined, and a decision has issued. To proceed to determine the present complaint would amount to re-adjudicating issues that have already been conclusively determined.

I find that complaint CA-00071831-001 (ADJ-59179) is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The complaint is therefore dismissed.

CA 00071831 –002

There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Complainant for today’s remote hearing. Having examined the case file I have satisfied that the complainant was on notice of the date, time and venue for the hearing. I am further satisfied that the Complainant was furnished with the hearing link. Attempts were made to contact the Complainant on the mobile number provided by him however those attempts were unsuccessful. The hearing proceeded at 10.30am having been scheduled to commence at 10am.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

CA -00071831 -001 The complaint fails

CA- 00071831 -002 The complaint fails

No Appearance.