Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jan Michael  Bosak

Alafco Aviation Lease And Finance Designated Activity Company Alafco Now Trading As Part Of The Macquarie Group

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms K Ennis BL instructed by Michael Doyle of A&L Goodbody LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00067885-001

04/12/2024

The issue in contention concerns a complaint regarding allegedly unpaid Holiday, Annual and Statutory Public ,  Leave for the Leave Years 2020, 2011, 2022 and 2023.

The Complainant was Head of Legal Services for an Aviation Finance /Leasing Company. The employment began on the 10th August 2020 and ended on the 6th June 2024

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been to have been €10,000 gross per month for an alleged 70 Hour week.

The Complainant was self-represented but submitted a detailed written submission which he supported by comprehensive Oral testimony.

It was accepted that he had signed a very comprehensive Compromise Agreement, dated the 4th June 2024, with the former Employer. This precluded any further employment related claims against his former Employer. He did not anticipate a favourable first instance Adjudication Decision.

The business of the Respondent was of a very complex and high level management of multinational Aviation level finance across numerous National jurisdictions. It involved very comprehensive and most intricate financial , taxation & legal matters.

His case was of major consequence for European Law and needed to be argued at the highest Legal level possible. Case law cited was Kreuziger vs Land Berlin and Max Planck vs Shimizu  (references were not provided).

It was a major element of his arguments that the Comprehensive Agreement had been the product of extensive financial and taxation pressures at a senior multinational level that had effectively forced the Complainant to agree.

It was his view that the Compromise Agreement was not properly legal based on a series of European ( ECJ) Law cases he cited. He wished to argue , if possible ,this point at the ECJ.

However, he wished to use the Adjudication Decision as a basis for an initial Appeal to the Labour Court and then to further Legal forums culminating in the European Court of Justice. He thanked the Adjudication Officer for his understanding.

The Respondent was represented by Ms Ennis BL of A&L Goodbody LLP. A very detailed Written Submission was presented supported by comprehensive Oral testimony. Extensive case law precedents were submitted.

It was argued strongly by Ms Ennis BL that the very detailed body of Irish case law supported the position that by accepting the very comprehensive Compromise Agreement of the 4th June 2024 the Complainant had effectively forsworn any subsequent claims such, as the present case, under the Payment of Wages Act,1991. The Complainant was himself a very senior Laywer and had retained a most experienced Solicitor to advise. The Legal Fees had been paid by the Respondent.

Case law cited included Hurley v Royal Cork Yacht Club [1997] ELR 225, Sunday Newspapers Ltd v Stephen Kinsella & Luck Bradley[2008] 19 ELR 53, Keelings Retail Unlimited Company v Wasim Haskiya (2024) plus a further comprehensive case list.

All cases supported the view that once a Comprehensive Legal Agreement was properly drafted and has had the benefit of full legal assistance on both sides ( and in this a significant financial settlement made and accepted) the Labour  Court or in this instance an Adjudication Officer had no jurisdiction to “re open” issues agreed.

This was the situation in this case. The European ECJ Arguments of the Complainant were not valid. The case had to be seen as outside the proper legal remit of the Adjudication Officer.

3:1       The Legal position.

The body of case Law cited by Ms Ennis BL was comprehensive and was not seriously contested by the Complainant. It represented the current Law as it stands. A very detailed Comprehensive Agreement had been drawn up and agreed with full Legal Advice. The Complainant was a very senior Legal Officer and the document had been through a number of drafts.

The Legal position was not seriously contested by the Complainant – the case needed a higher level of review. He looked forward to arguing his case at a European level.

3:2      Adjudication Conclusion

The current Irish case law is quite clear – once a fully Legal Comprehensive Compromise Agreement  ,with all proper Legal Safeguards , is enacted a “reopening” of the case is not within the jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer .

Accordingly , having reviewed all the evidence, both Oral and Written presented, the Adjudication decision has to be that the case is not within Proper Jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer.

It has to be deemed Not Properly Founded.

Comprehensive Compromise Settlement, Adjudication jurisdiction.