|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : HSE DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). ADJ-00030029, CA-00039955-001. This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal brought by Mr Marco di Marzio (‘the Complainant’) from a purported decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00030029, dated 6 October 2021) in his favour under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Complainant’s Notice of Appeal was received on 11 November 2020. The Court sat in a virtual courtroom on 21 January 2022 to consider the appeal. Preliminary issue as to Jurisdiction The Court has considered ADJ-00030029 from which the Complainant appeals to this Court. The Court cannot find therein a decision made under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to wages, as defined in that Act, properly payable to the Complainant in respect of his employment as a part-time sessional pharmacist. The decision of the Adjudication Officer in question, on the face of it, deals only with the calculation of compensation for loss of earnings in accordance with the agreed formula for such matters applied across the public sector and how that formula should be applied to a previous Recommendation (ADJ-00026135, dated 14 May 2020) made by a different Adjudication Officer under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. It is settled law that recommendations and decisions made by an Adjudication Officer or the Labour Court in voluntary proceedings under the Industrial Relations Acts are non-justiciable. Furthermore, this Court has previously held that a recommendation of an Adjudication Officer to the effect that compensation be paid to a successful party to a section 13 complaint cannot subsequently form the basis for a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as such compensation is not comprehended by the definition of wages in the 1991 Act. (See O’Keeffe v Food Court Event Catering PW/21/44.) As no decision was made in this case under the 1991 Act, it follows that the Court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal under the 1991 Act in these proceedings. The Court so determines.
NOTE |
