PARSONS v Iarnród Éireann/IRISH RAIL

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barrington
• Judgment Date: 24 April 1997
• Neutral Citation: 1997 WJSC-SC 3548
• Docket Number: Record No. 10736/1991
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 24 April 1997

1997 WJSC-SC 3548

THE SUPREME COURT

Hamilton, C.J.

Barrington, J.

Lynch, J.

Record No. 10736/1991

(190/95)

PARSONS v. IARNOID EIREANN/IRISH RAIL

Between:/

JAMES PARSONS

Plaintiff/Appellant

and

IARNRÓD EIREANN/IRISH RAIL

Defendant/Respondent

Citations:

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACT 1977 S15(2)

COURTS ACT 1981

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACT 1977 S15(1)

DOLAN V CORK EXCHANGE 1975 IR 315

J (P) V J (J) 1992 ILRM 273

MCGRATH V MCDERMOTT 1988 IR 258

PYX GRANITE CO LTD V MINISTRY OF HOUSING & LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1960 AC 260

GLOVER V BLN 1973 IR 388

GOLDRICK & ANOR V DUBLIN CORPORATION UNREP MURPHY 10.11.86 1986/6/617

O'NEILL V IARNROD EIREANN 1991 ILRM 129

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACT 1977 S15(3)

Synopsis:

Employment Law

Unfair dismissals Act, 1977; S.15(2) bars right to damages at common law; plaintiff claimed S.15(2) silent as to other claims at common law or in equity; consequences of loss of right to sue for damages at common law. Held: Suing for damages at common law and claiming relief under Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 are mutually exclusive; Act doesn't oust jurisdiction of High Court. (Supreme Court: Hamilton CJ, Barrington, Lynch JJ. 24/04/1997)

Parsons v. Iarnród Eireann

Mr. Justice Barrington

[NEM DISS]

1 This case turns upon the correct interpretation of Section 15 s.s. 2 of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977.

2 The Plaintiff was, prior to his dismissal, employed by the Defendant serving teas and coffees on trains running between Dublin and Cork. In or about October 2nd, 1989 the Plaintiff was informed of certain allegations made against him that he had either not given receipts to customers in respect of monies received from them or had given them receipts for less than the value of the items purchased by them. These allegations were denied by the Plaintiff. Later in the same month the Plaintiff appeared before a Disciplinary Committee to face charges arising out of these allegations. Later, by letter dated October 31st, 1989 and signed by the Defendants Administration Manager the Plaintiff was informed of the result of this hearing and of the fact that he was dismissed from the employment of the Defendant. The Plaintiff, pursuant to the internal procedure of the Defendant company appealed against this decision but the decision was confirmed and the Plaintiff was informed that his dismissal was to take effect as from November 28th, 1989.

3 In or about November 21st, 1989 the Defendant was informed that the Plaintiff intended to pursue a claim through the Rights Commissioner's Office under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977.

4 The matter came before a Rights Commissioner on December 21st, 1989 and he recommended that the Plaintiff should proceed to the next stage of the Defendants Internal Disciplinary proceedings which was an ad misericordiam meeting. This meeting duly took place without prejudice to the rights of either of the parties but the Plaintiff's dismissal was confirmed.

5 On the 19th July, 1991 the Plaintiff issued the present proceedings. In his Statement of Claim he claims the following relief:-

6 1. A Declaratory Order that the decision reached by the Defendant in or about November 17, 1989 dismissing the Plaintiff from his employment is null and void and of no effect.

7 2. A Declaratory Order that the ad misercordiam (sic) meeting in or about January 1990, on foot of the decision to dismiss the Plaintiff in November 1989 and the decision to affirm that penalty is null and void and of no effect.

8 3. A mandatory injunction compelling the Defendant to reinstate the Plaintiff to the position he held with the Defendant prior to his dismissal.

9 4. Damages for breach of contract.

10 5. Damages for wrongful and/or unfair dismissal.

11 6. Damages for loss of earnings from the time of the Plaintiff's suspension in October, 1989 to the determination of these proceedings.

12 7. Damages for nervous and/or mental distress.

13 8. Such other Orders as this honourable Court shall see fit.

14 9. Interest on damages awarded under the Courts Act,1981and the costs of these proceedings.

15 The Defendant lodged a full defence to the proceedings in which he raised the following preliminary objection:-

"The Defendant objects to the Plaintiff's proceedings herein and says that the same contravene the provisions of Section 15 (2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, which require an employee to initiate proceedings either under the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977, or at Common Law for wrongful dismissal, but not both, and since the Plaintiff has already made application to a Rights Commissioner pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, as admitted at paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendant will seek to have the Plaintiff's said proceedings struck out at the trial of the action".

16 The first two sub-sections of Section 15 of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977read as follows:-

17 2 15.1 Nothing in this Act, apart from this section, shall prejudice the right of a person to recover damages at common law for wrongful dismissal.

18 3 15.2 Where an employee gives a notice in writing under Section 8 s.s. 2 of this Act in respect of the dismissal...