UDD2542

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00039862 (CA-00051265-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 18 December 2019 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 October 2024.

The following is the Decision of the Court:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Krzysztof Knapik (the Respondent) against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00039682 CA-00051265-001 given under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 (the Act’s) in a claim against ASL Airlines Limited (the Respondent) that he was unfairly dismissed.  The Adjudication Officer held that she did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

1 Background

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Polish based Pilot, on a permanent basis from 1 January 2021 until dismissal in April 2022.He had previously worked for the Respondent as an agency worker, via CAE Parc Aviation. The Complainant’s contract clearly states that his work shall be performed at Katowice Poland. It is the Complainants submission that he was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent submits that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint as he was not based in Ireland, nor did he live in Ireland. The Respondent submitted that this issue should be addressed first, as it goes to the heart of the Courts jurisdiction.

 The complaint was submitted to the WRC on 22 June 2022. The Adjudication Officer issued her decision on 30 April 2024. The complaint was appealed to the Court on 12 July 2024 and came on for hearing in Dublin on 16 October 2025.  

2 Summary of Complainant’s submission on preliminary issue

The Complainant made a detailed submission around what he believed to be the law at European level in respect of the appropriate country to pursue his appeal in circumstances whereby the contract does not specify the applicable law regarding the applicable jurisdiction. The Complainant submitted that to the extent that the parties have not chosen the law applicable to the individual employment contract the contract will be governed by the law of the country in which or failing that from which the Worker works or usually works in execution of the contract. In his evidence to the Court the Complainant stated that he had a contract with the Respondent since 20 December 2020.

 In the contract the employers address is a Dublin address, and his taxes were returned in Ireland. No taxes were paid in Poland they were all paid in Dublin. The contract makes no mention of a Polish branch of the company. The second contract he received in July 2020 the company address is Manchester other than that it is identical to the earlier contract. In January 2022 he received notice of contract termination which stated it would terminate in April 2022. The correspondence mentioned a Polish branch of the company, he stated that he asked about the address for the Polish branch, but his query was never answered. It was his evidence that a Polish Branch cannot exist without a valid address and a tax number. It would also be required to register with a Polish Court and have a registration number. Social security contributions were paid by a private person (not the Respondent) for him in Poland. He confirmed to the Court that his main job was between France and the UK and occasionally Poland.

After the notice of termination in January he received other information that his work in France was terminated as the company was going through a re-organisation and only French pilots could work in France, which meant he could only do UK flights. It was his submission that there are important factors that the Court has to consider.

• 1) The Planes are registered in Ireland and are therefore deemed to be Irish soil
• 2) His taxes were paid in Ireland
• 3) The Company is Irish

Based on the fact that the planes are registered in Ireland he was de facto working in Ireland every time he got on one of the planes.

3 Summary of Respondent’s submission onpreliminary issue

 The Respondent submitted that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal as Irish law does not cover the employment contract. The nature of the Complainant’s role involved him carrying out his duties in a number of member states with his home base in Poland. A home base is one set of factors to be considered in determining the place from which an employee habitually carries out his work. It is clear from the duty records opened to the Court covering the periods July 2018 to April 2022 and positioning records from December 2018 to December 2022, that he was positioned from Katowice for work on flights out of France and Germany where the aircraft were based. During the relevant period over 60% of his positioning was from Katowice to France and France to Katowice. Standby, reserve, off or rest time during duty periods and rotations were spent predominantly in France and Germany. The flights taken by him were internal to France, between France and Germany, between France and UK and internal to UK other than on three occasions. He was only in Ireland on one occasion during the relevant period. Mr Murray BL drew the Courts attention to section 2 (3) of the Unfair dismissals Act 1977 which provides that

“This Act shall not apply in relation to the dismissal of an employee who, under the relevant contract of employment, ordinarily worked outside the state, unless:

• (i) He was ordinarily resident in the State during the term of the contract, or
• (ii) He was domiciled in the state during the term of the contract and the employer
• (iii) In case the employer was an individual, ordinarily resident in the state during the term of the contract or
• (iv) In case the employer was a body corporate or an incorporated body of persons, had its principal place of business in the State during the term of the contract,”

At no time was the Complainant domiciled in Ireland during his employment and therefore the Act does not apply.

4 Discussion and Decision on the preliminary issue.

The Complainant did not dispute that he was not ordinarily resident in Ireland during the term of his contract nor that he was not domiciled in the state during the term of his contract. He instead chose to rely on what he stated to be a fully accepted fact that because the planes were registered in Ireland, once he was flying the plane he was working in Ireland. He accepted that the planes were generally leased from a company not based in Ireland. He confirmed that he was not able to provide any law or case law to support this contention other than his belief that this was common belief within the industry. The Respondent did not accept that this was legally or factually correct

 The Court taking into account the Complainant’s acceptance that that he was neither resident nor domiciled in the country during the relevant period finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

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
JNF	______________________
28 November 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Julie Nicholl-Flood, Court Secretary.