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

Return to Search

TED235

FULL RECOMMENDATION

TE/23/24
ADJ-00032272 CA-00041970-001

DETERMINATION NO. TED235

SECTION 8 (1), TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS, 1994 TO 2014

PARTIES:

TANTEK SOLUTIONS
(REPRESENTED BY DAMIEN TANSEY SOLICITORS LLP)

- AND -

MR MICHAEL WINCIUN (LITIGANT IN PERSON)

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Mr Haugh
Employer Member:	Mr Murphy
Worker Member:	Mr Bell

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00032272 CA-00041970-001

BACKGROUND:

2. The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 2 March 2023 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2014. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12 April 2023. The following is the Decision of the Court:-

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Within Proceedings

Mr Michael Winciun (‘the Complainant’) submitted a Notice of Appeal to this Court on 2 March 2023 arising from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00032272, dated 21 February 2023) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. In his covering email, the Complainant stated that he did not wish to appeal the decision itself but was seeking a “change of wording of the decision”. He then went on to quote a paragraph from the Adjudication Officer’s decision which he described as “a baseless statement, that is not a fact but speculation”.

The Hearing

The Court convened in a virtual courtroom on 12 April 2023 to deal with the within matter. At the commencement of the hearing, the Complainant again re-iterated that he did not wish to appeal the substance of the Adjudication Officer’s decision; rather, his application to the Court was to have a paragraph in the decision reworded as he regarded it as “slanderous” of him.

The Solicitor for Tantek Solutions submitted that the Court did not have jurisdiction to accede to the Complainant’s request.

Decision

The Court’s jurisdiction as determined by the Oireachtas is given statutory expression in section 44(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 as follows:

“Appeal to Labour Court from decision of adjudication officer
44. (1)
- (a) A party to proceedings under section 41 may appeal a decision of an adjudication officer given in those proceedings to the Labour Court and, where the party does so, the Labour Court shall—
  - (i) give the parties to the appeal an opportunity to be heard by it and to present to it any evidence relevant to the appeal,
    (ii) make a decision in relation to the appeal in accordance with the relevant redress provision, and
    
    (iii) give the parties to the appeal a copy of that decision in writing.”

It is well-established that an appeal that comes before the Court pursuant to section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act is determined by it on de novo basis i.e. a complainant’s statutory claim is heard afresh by the Court and the Court then makes a determination based on the evidence presented to it, which determination is then issued in writing to the parties. Section 44 does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to review and/or rewrite an Adjudication Officer’s first-instance decision or part thereof.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court dismisses the Complainant’s application in this matter. The Court does not have jurisdiction to do what has been requested of it by the Complainant.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

	Alan Haugh
CO'R	______________________
26 April 2023	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.