Liebherr Container Cranes Ltd (Represented by Marguerite Bolger, S.C., Instructed by Crowley, Solicitors). v Mark Roache Represented by David Fagan, Solicitor, Business Legal)
Labour Court (Ireland)
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00003672
2. This case is an appeal by the Worker of an Adjudication Officer's Decision made pursuant to Section 15(1) of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term) Act, 2003. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 12 January 2018. The following is the Court's Determination.
This is an appeal brought by Mr Roache (‘the Complainant’) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00003672, dated 4 October 2017) under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’). The Court received the Complainant's Notice of Appeal on 10 November 2017. It heard the appeal in Dublin on 12 January 2018 in tandem with the Complainant's appeal under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (CD/17/337).
In his original complaint form, the Complainant identified his complaint under the 2003 Act as follows: “My employer failed to offer a written statement setting out the objective grounds justifying the renewal of a fixed-term contract and the failure to offer a contract of indefinite duration.” In fact, as will be evident from what follows below, the Complainant's case is not that he didn't receive a written statement on each of the two occasions that his fixed-term contract was renewed by his former employer, Liebherr Container Cranes Limited (‘the Respondent’), but that the reasons stated therein for the renewal of his contract for a further fixed term were allegedly inadequate and did not meet the requirements of section 7(1) of the 2003 Act.
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent pursuant to a series of fixed-term contracts as follows:
Contract 1: 9 June 2014 stated to be for twelve months;
Contract 2: 5 June 2015 until 30 November 2015; and
Contract 3: 30 November 2015 until 27 May 2016.
Contract 2 and Contract 3 both contained a clause which identified the reason for the Respondent's decision to offer the Complainant a further fixed-term contract was ‘fluctuation in business demand’.
The Court spent some time, at the outset of the within appeal, trying to identify exactly what claim was being advanced before it on behalf of the Complainant. His Solicitor did concede that the Complainant could not (and was not attempting to) pursue a claim that section 9 of the 2003 Act had been breached in his case. He likewise conceded that the Complainant was not claiming that there had been a breach of section 6 of the 2003 Act. It appears to the Court, therefore, that the essence of the complaint being advanced is that the Respondent, on both occasions, that it had renewed the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL