This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

LCR22734

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/22/160
ADJ-00035372 CA-00038590-003
DECISION  NO.  LCR22734

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES:
WESTAIR AVIATION LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY HOLMES O MALLEY SEXTON LLP)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY ORGANIC HRM)


DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell
Employer Member: Mr O'Brien
Worker Member: Mr Bell


SUBJECT:

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00035372 CA-00038590-003

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 5 August 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. On 8 December 2021 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:
“I do not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.’
A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 March 2023.





DECISION:

Background

This is an appeal by the Worker of an Adjudication Officer’s decision. The Adjudication Officer did not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.

The Worker’s representative submissions covered all his complaints under various pieces of legislation without defining the specific issues or sections of the acts being relied on or the section of the submission that were relevant to a particular complaint. At the commencement of the hearing the Court sought clarification in respect of each of the specific complaints. In respect of this complaint the Court was advised that the issue was that the Complainant was subjected to bullying in the workplace. This case is linked to cases ECD/22/1, HSC/22/10 FTC/22/29 and CD/22/159. Cases UD/22/98 and ECP/22/1 were withdrawn in the course of the hearing.

Preliminary issue

The Employer raised as an issue the fact that the Worker’s representative had informed the Court in her first submission that this complaint was being withdrawn. It was their submission that once she had notified the Court it was being withdrawn there was no process for the complaint to be reinstated. The representative of the Worker submitted that although she had initially submitted that this particular complaint was withdrawn, she believed that she had been instructed by the Labour Court to reinstate the complaint. The representative sought to rely on correspondence she received informing her that the hearing originally scheduled for 2nd November 2022 would cover all aspects of the original appeal. It was her submission that she understood that to be an instruction to re-instate the complaint she had withdrawn.

The Worker’s representative confirmed to the Court that the Complainant had not processed the grievances that he was now complaining off through the Employers procedure prior to lodging his complaint on this issue to the WRC.

Discussion and Decision.

In matters of this nature the Labour Court is the Court of last resort and therefore in circumstance where the Complainant had not exhausted the internal procedure it was premature to refer the issue to the WRC and on to the Labour Court. On that basis his complaint must fail. The appeal fails the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld

The Court so decides.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
DC ______________________
19 April 2023 Deputy Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.