LCR22439

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00022718 CA-00029577-001

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute concerns the workers claims that she was unfairly dismissed. This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission for Investigation and Recommendation. On 24th September 2020 the Adjudication Officer issued the following recommendation:

"Procedurally the dismissal of the Employee in the instant case was flawed and I now recommend that compensation of an amount equal to four weeks' pay is made to the Employee. I calculate this figure to be €2769.23."

On 28^th September 2020, the Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30^th July 2021.

DECISION :

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by the worker against a recommendation of an Adjudication Officer of the Workplace Relations Commission given under the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 2015 in a trade dispute between the worker and her former employer.

The Adjudication Officer appears to have understood the dispute to be based on the worker’s contention that she had been unfairly dismissed. The Adjudication Officer decided that the procedures employed by the former employer in terminating the employment of the Claimant were not fair and he recommended the payment of €2769.23 to the Claimant in compensation.

The Court went to significant lengths at its hearing to explain to both parties the nature of its jurisdiction in relation to this appeal. The Court specifically advised the parties that under the Industrial Relations Acts, its jurisdiction extended only to expressing an opinion in the form of a decision, based on the merits of the dispute, as to how the dispute might be resolved. The Court made it clear that this jurisdiction differed from the Court’s jurisdiction when addressing a dispute based on employment rights set out in employment law.

The Claimant objected strenuously to the Court’s efforts to explain the nature of the jurisdiction of the Court in industrial relations matters and made several accusations against the members of the Court personally.

The Court provided both parties with the opportunity to articulate the nature of the dispute. The Court also had the benefit of a written submission from both parties.

The Claimant did not co-operate with the Court in its efforts to structure the hearing in a manner whereby both parties would have a full opportunity to set out the issues between them in relation to the termination of the Claimant’s employment in February 2019. The Court, as a result of the behaviour of the Claimant at the hearing, failed to achieve a clear understanding of the issues being raised by the Claimant, the differences between the parties in relation to those issues or the nature of the resolution to the trade dispute which she would find acceptable or reasonable.

In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that both parties accept that the relationship between them concluded in February 2019 and that the trade dispute before the Court should be regarded as resolved as a result of the effluxion of time.

The Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
EMcN	______________________
6th August 2021	Chairman