PED256

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00039722 (CA-00039268-001)

BACKGROUND:

This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to Section 9 of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. 

The following is the Court's Decision.

DECISION:

1. Background

This is an appeal by Debenham Retail (Ireland) Limited (In Liquidation) (the Respondent) against Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00039722 CA-00039268-001 given under section 9 of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 (the Act). The Adjudication Officer held that the claim by the Complainant under the Regulations was well founded and awarded compensation of €900. The Complainant commenced work in December 1998 as a catering assistant with the Respondent. The parties agree that the Complainant’s weekly gross pay was €445.

On or about 8 April 2020, the parent company informed the Respondent that it could no longer provide funding. The Board of the Irish company held an emergency meeting and recommended to their shareholder to take immediate steps to petition the Irish High Court to wind up the Company and to have a liquidator appointed.

The Complainant alleges that the requirements of section 9 of the Act have not been complied with. There is a linked complaint PE/25/4.

2. Preliminary issue

This was a double appeal. Prior to this case coming on for hearing a similar case Debenham Retail (Ireland) Limited (In Liquidation) and Jane Crowe H.MCA 2024/228was before the High Court. It is not disputed that the case before the High Court was the same in all but name as this case. Barr J in a judgement issued on 7 March 2025 held at paras 98 and 99;

“The Directive and the Act do not state that a consultative meeting represents the start of the consultation process required under their provisions. I hold that the consultation process required under the Directive and under the 1977 Act, is a process that can start in advance of the first consultative meeting by the provision of the information on the proposed collective redundancies as required by s.10 of the 1977 Act. In these circumstances, I hold that as a matter of law, the consultation process began with the sending of information by letter by Ms O’Connor to Mr Light on 14 April 2020.

Accordingly, I hold that the Labour Court erred in law in finding that the consultation process as required under s.9 of the 1977 Act, commenced with the holding of the meeting on 17 April 2020.

In paragraph 100 and101 Barr J. addressed the issue of delay as follows;

“The third ground of challenge to the decision of the Labour Court concerned the finding by the Labour Court that the delay from 9 April 2020 to 17 April 2020 meant that certain unidentified options were no longer available due to the appointment of provisional liquidators in the interim.

Mr Kirwan SC quite correctly conceded that there was no evidence before the Labour Court of any options having been lost or becoming otherwise unavailable due to any delays between 9 April 2020 and the holding of the first consultative meeting on 17 April 2020. As this finding was made by the Labour Court without evidence it cannot stand.

The Court held a case management conference on 1 August 2025. Mr Des Ryan BL representative for the Respondent submitted that the High Court had decided the issues raised in the appeals and that the Court should issue a preliminary ruling as provided for in the Labour Court rules. He went on to say that based on the High Court decision in Debenham Retail (Ireland) Limited (In Liquidation) and Jane Crowe H.MCA 2024/228, the ruling can only conclude that the Respondent’s appeal must succeed. SIPTU, on behalf of the Complainant stated that they would consider what the Respondent had said and take instruction on same. Following the case management hearing, SIPTU withdrew its appeals.

The Court received further correspondence from the Respondent requesting that in accordance with section 47(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 that the Court consider the preliminary issue based on written submissions.

The Court by email of 22 September 2025 sought clarification from SIPTU as to whether the Complainant was contesting the Respondent’s appeal and setting out the request to have the matter considered based on written submissions only. Confirmation was received on 26 September 2025 that the Complainant was not contesting the appeals.

A Division of the Labour Court sat on 21 October 2025 and considered the submissions before it. It noted that the Complainant had withdrawn her appeal and was not contesting the Respondent’s appeal. The Court also took into account the High Court decision in Debenham Retail (Ireland) Limited (In Liquidation) and Jane Crowe H.MCA 2024/228 which both parties accepted was based on identical facts and circumstances. The Court determined, taking all of the above into consideration, that the appeal succeeds.

The decision of the Adjudication officer is set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O’Donnell
AM	______________________
27 November 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.