Pearlstone Investments Ltd IL Fico Restaurant (Represented by Coonan Cawley Solicitors) v Mr Gabor Rozsa (Represented by Burns Nowlan LLP Solicitors)

JurisdictionIreland
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)
Judgment Date10 Mar 2020
Judgment citation (vLex)[2020] 3 JIEC 1003
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.RPD201 ADJ-00023923 CA-00030481-001

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

RPA/20/1

DETERMINATION NO.RPD201

ADJ-00023923 CA-00030481-001

PARTIES:
Pearlstone Investments Limited IL Fico Restaurant (Represented by Coonan Cawley Solicitors)
and
Mr Gabor Rozsa (Represented by Burns Nowlan LLP Solicitors)
DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Foley

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2014

SUBJECT:
1

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00023923

BACKGROUND:
2

2. The Claimant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 31 December 2019 in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 February 2020. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:
3

This is an appeal by Gabor Rozsa (the Appellant) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer on a claim against his former employer made under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. The decision of the Adjudication Officer identified the Respondent as ‘Pearlstone Investments Limited IL Fico Restaurant’. Representatives of Pearlstone Investments Limited (PIL) attended the hearing of the Court.

4

Preliminary Issue

5

The representatives of PIL raised as a preliminary issue a contention that the decision of the Adjudication Officer and the within appeal are directed against an entity which was not the employer of the Appellant at the material time or at all.

6

The representatives of PIL submitted that the Respondent was employed by an entity called IL Fico Italian Restaurant Limited trading as Il Fico Restaurant.

7

The Appellant also submitted to the Court that the entity named in the appeal and on the face of the decision of the Adjudication Officer was not his employer. He submitted that he was employed by Il Fico Italian Restaurant Limited trading as Il Fico Restaurant and that this was the employer specified on his contract of employment and understood by him at all times to be his employer.

8

The representatives of PIL submitted that the Court held no jurisdiction to alter the decision of the Adjudication Officer or to empanel another Respondent at the hearing of the Court. That submission was not disputed by the Appellant.

9

In circumstances where both parties agree that the Respondent identified on the face of the decision of the Adjudication Officer and in the within appeal was not the employer of the Appellant at the material time or at all the within appeal cannot proceed and must fail...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT