Parsons v Iarnród Éireann

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 April 1997
• Date: 24 April 1997
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 190 of 1995]
• Court: Supreme Court

Parsons v. Iarnród Éireann

James Parsons

Plaintiff

and

Iarnród Éireann/Irish éireann/irish Rail, Defendant

[S.C. No. 190 of 1995]

Supreme Court

Employment - Dismissal - Claim pursued through rights commissioner - Availability of equitable at common law remedies - Ouster of jurisdiction - Whether plaintiff prohibited by statute from pursuing damages may seek declaratory relief - Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 (No. 10), s. 15, sub-ss. 1 and 2.

Statute - Interpretation - Dismissal from employment - Claim pursued through rights commissioner - Availability of equitable or common law remedy - Whether declaratory relief open to plaintiff prohibited by statute from pursuing damages at common law - Whether ouster of jurisdiction - Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 (No. 10), s. 15, sub-ss. 1 and 2.

Judicial review - Declaration - Employment - Right of employee to equitable or common law remedy, other than for a claim for damages, after pursuing a claim through a rights commissioner.

Section 15 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides:—

"(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.

(2) Where an employee gives a notice in writing under section 8, sub-section (2) of this Act in respect of a dismissal to a rights commissioner or the Tribunal, he shall not be entitled to recover damages at common law for wrongful dismissal . . ."

The plaintiff, who had worked for the defendant for a period of thirty years, was informed of certain allegations made against him. The plaintiff denied the allegations. The plaintiff appeared before a disciplinary committee arising out of the allegations and as a result of the hearing the plaintiff was dismissed from his employment.

The plaintiff informed the defendant that he intended to pursue a claim through the Rights Commissioner's Office under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The matter was heard before a rights commissioner and he recommended that the plaintiff should proceed to the next stage of the defendant's internal disciplinary proceedings. This meeting took place and the plaintiff's dismissal was confirmed.

Subsequently the plaintiff issued proceedings seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the decision to dismiss the plaintiff from his employment was null and void, an injunction compelling the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff and damages for breach of contract and/or damages for wrongful and/or unfair dismissal. The defendant lodged a full defence and raised the preliminary objection that the plaintiff's proceedings contravened the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, on the basis that s. 15, sub-s. 2 of the Act stated that an employee could take proceedings either under that Act or at common law but not both and that since the plaintiff had already made an application to a rights commissioner he was barred from proceeding at common law. The defendant's application was to have the plaintiff's proceedings struck out.

The High Court (Carroll J.) held that it was the intention of the Oireachtas that there should be two alternative means of redress, either under the Act or at common law, and that having chosen to go to the rights commissioner, the plaintiff could not have recourse to common law.

On appeal by the plaintiff it was

Held by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., Barrington and Lynch JJ.), in dismissing the appeal, 1, that the Unfair Dismissals Act gave a worker who felt that he had been unfairly dismissed an additional remedy and did not limit the worker's rights to proceed for relief through the courts if he so elected.

2. That as the traditional relief at common law for wrongful dismissal was damages and as damages at common law could not be pursued upon his election to proceed through a rights commissioner under the Act of 1977 any declaratory remedy could not exist independently from the traditional remedy of damages at common law.

Cases mentioned in this...