UDD2134

1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s)ADJ-00020363 CA-00026956

BACKGROUND:

2.The Employer and Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officerto the Labour Court in accordance with Section 8(A) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 29 March 2021. The following is the Determination of the Court:-

DETERMINATION:

This is a double appeal Sanmina-sci(hereafter the Respondent) are appealing decision ADJ-00020363 of an Adjudication Officer on the basis that this Respondent was not the employer. Mr Opperman (the Complainant) is appealing the decision on the basis that if this Respondent is held to be the correct employer then the appropriate form of redress should be re-instatement. This case is linked to UD/ 20 /23 MPSTOR and William Opperman who the Respondent believes was the employer at the material time. The Adjudication Officer in decision ADJ-00020331 held that MPSTOR was the employer and awarded compensation.

Background

The Complainant was employed from the 1^stJanuary 2006 until the 18^thJune 2018 when his contract of employment was terminated. The Complainant was paid three-months’ notice which he was not obliged to work, and his employment ended on the 18^thSeptember 2018. At the time of dismissal, the Complainant was paid €150,000 gross. In 2015 the entire issued share capital in MPSTOR Limited was sold to Sanmina Corporation. The final agreement was executed on 22^ndDecember 2015. MPSTOR at that point became a subsidiary of the parent company Sanmina Corporation. MPSTOR continued trading and the Complainant was offered the position of Vice-President of MPSTOR.

At the commencement of the hearing the representative for the Respondent informed the Court that the correct name for the parent company is Sanmina Corporation and that they were not contesting the fact that the dismissal was unfair. He also informed the Court that should the Court award compensation the parent company were prepared to underwrite payment of the award.

Both parties agreed that there were two issues before the Court: 1) who the correct employer was and 2) the appropriate form of redress. It was agreed that this case and case UD/20/22 referenced above would be heard together. It was agreed with the parties that the Court would hear submissions on the issue of the correct employer first, then hear witness evidence and finally hear submissions on the three forms of redress available to the Court under the Acts.

Determination

The Court in the linked case of UD/20/23 determined that MPSTOR was the correct employer at all material times. On that basis the appeal of the Respondent is upheld, and the appeal of the Complainant fails. The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is overturned.

The Court so Determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
DC	______________________
12 May 2021	Deputy Chairman