Petraitis v Philmic Ltd t/a Premier Linen Services

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice White
Judgment Date06 December 2017
Neutral Citation[2017] IEHC 831
Docket Number[2016 No. 253 MCA]
CourtHigh Court
Date06 December 2017

[2017] IEHC 831

THE HIGH COURT

White Michael J.

[2016 No. 253 MCA]

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO ORDER 84C RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS: SECTION 28(6) OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 AND THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION ACT 1994 AND

SECTION 46 WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015

BETWEEN
EDGARAS PETRAITIS
APPELLANT
AND
PHILMIC LIMITED TRADING AS PREMIER LINEN SERVICES
RESPONDENT

Employment – The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 – The Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 – The Workplace Relations Act 2015 – Fair procedure – Appeal on point of law

Facts: The appellant filed a statutory appeal against the determinations of the Labour Court. The appellant sought an order that the determinations of the Labour Court should have been set aside and that the appeals should have been remitted to a differently constituted Labour Court for rehearing. The appellant contended that the Labour Court had erred in law in relation to the entitlements of the appellant under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The appellant also contended that the Labour Court had failed to apply fair procedures while conducting the hearing of the case. The appellant also claimed that he had filed detailed submissions to the Labour Court in relation to the legal advice privilege and request for witnesses' summons and the Labour Court did not deal with those issues.

Mr. Justice White Michael refused the reliefs sought by the appellant. The Court did not consider it appropriate to remit the matter back for determination by a differently constituted panel. The Court found the Labour Court had proceeded with fair procedures and there were no errors of law. The Court, however, observed that the Labour Court should have dealt with the issues pertaining to the legal advice privilege and request for witnesses' summons. The Court directed that those issues should have been determined either by an expert Tribunal or the High Court appropriately. The Court held that the non-resolution of those issues was not the basis to set aside the Labour Court's determinations that were just, cogent and reasonable.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice White delivered on 6th day of December, 2017
1

The Appellant issued a motion on 15th July, 2016, originally returnable for 17th October, 2016, appealing to this Court on points of law from the determinations of the Labour Court on 8th June, 2016, in determination numbers DWT/1640 on alleged breaches of provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and determination TED/1616, on alleged breaches of the Terms of Employment Information Acts 1994 – 2012. The Appellant seeks:-

(i) A Declaration that the Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself in the manner outlined in the points of law in this appeal.

(ii) An Order that the determinations of the Labour Court be set aside.

(iii) An Order that the appeals be remitted to a differently constituted Labour Court for rehearing in accordance with fair procedures and the principle of deterrence and equivalence.

2

The pleadings were grounded on the affidavit of the Appellant's solicitor, Richard Grogan, together with copies of the submissions made to the court with notes on the original hearing and other miscellaneous documents which were exhibited in that affidavit. Michael Daly, Managing Director, of the Respondent deposed a replying affidavit on 20th October, 2016, likewise exhibiting the submissions, determinations and letters relevant to the hearing before the Labour Court. The Respondent filed its Statement of Opposition in October 2016. Richard Grogan, solicitor for the Appellant deposed and filed a replying affidavit on 1st November, 2016.

3

The grounds of the appeal and the points of law to which the appeal relate are:-

(i) That the Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself as to the Appellant's entitlements under s. 6 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

(ii) That the Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself as to the Appellant's entitlements under s. 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

(iii) That the Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself as to the Appellant's entitlements under s. 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act.

(iv) The Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself in not addressing the issue of compensation to the employee under s. 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act and the issue of setting compensation.

(v) That the Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself in not addressing the issue as to the level of the breach identified.

(vi) That the Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself in not setting compensation for s. 12 separate to s. 17 of the Organisation of Working Time Act.

(vii) That the Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself as to the Appellant's entitlements under s. 19 and 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act.

(viii) The Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself in not applying provisions of Statutory Instrument 475/1997 and the calculation of the employee's entitlement to Public Holidays.

(ix) The Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself as to the Appellant's entitlement to holiday pay under s. 20 of the Organisation of Working Time.

(x) The Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself as to the Appellant's entitlements under s. 19 which was not the issue before the Labour Court.

(xi) The Labour Court erred in law and misdirected itself by engaging in an exercise of fact finding and failing to apply fair procedures.

4

The Appellant was employed as a laundry worker with the Respondent. He commenced employment on 26th April, 2012 and his employment was terminated on 18th March, 2015. The appellant was paid €8.65 an hour.

The Appellant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission claiming that the Respondent had breached provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and statutory instruments made pursuant to the Act and also had breached the provisions of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, and statutory instruments made pursuant to that legislation.

5

The adjudication officer on 2nd February, 2016, issued separate rulings on the alleged breaches of the separates acts. On the alleged breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the adjudication officer decided that there was no breach of ss. 19, 21 and 23 of the Act, that there was a technical breach of s. 12 of the Act and there was no breach of s. 17 of the Act. The adjudication officer noted that the employer had technically breached s. 12 of the Act even though the complainant does get 40 minutes each afternoon's shift and the adjudication officer directed the respondent to pay the Appellant compensation of €200. In a separate ruling on the complaint on the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the adjudication officer decided that the Appellant's complaint was not well founded. The Appellant appealed both rulings to the Labour Court pursuant to s. 44 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and s. 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The procedural rules by which the Labour Court operates are rules made pursuant to s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, as amended by s. 50 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, and are described as Labour Court (Employment Rights Enactments) Rules 2016. The applicable rules are set out at Part 3 and 4 of the Rules.

6

The solicitors for the Appellant prepared two written submissions of 16th February, 2016, one submission on the alleged breach of Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 – 2012 and a submission on the alleged breaches of Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The Respondent's representative, Nora Cash, Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Limited furnished a written submission to the court also dealing with both Acts together. That submission is undated.

7

On 15th April, 2016, the solicitors for the Appellant wrote to the Labour Court and referred to a submission already furnished to the Labour Court on litigation advice privilege and a request for witness summonses. The solicitors had requested a witness summons be addressed to Mr. Mark Ramsbottom, Ms. Nora Cashe, Mr. Peter Swift. The solicitors sought and required that these individuals be summonsed to the Labour Court hearing and bring with them:-

'copies of all advices and documentation and notes relating to any advice sought or requested from Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Limited, Peninsula Business Services Ltd, or from either of the named parties above relating to the claim by our client against the employers referred to above.

For the avoidance of any doubt we are seeking all documentation relating to any correspondence to or from any of the parties named above namely the Employer, Mr. Mark Ramsbottom or Mr. Peter Swift or any servant, agent or employee of Peninsula Business Services Ltd or Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Limited to or from the Employer.'

8

Detailed submissions on legal advice privilege and the entitlement of the persons representing the Respondent were sent to the Labour Court. It was submitted that the Respondent's chosen representative should not have a right of audience before the Labour Court. The submission also referred to a possible conflict of interest as Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Limited may have indemnified the Respondent in respect of any part of a claim.

9

The submission concluded by stating:-

'Based on the above arguments we are seeking witness summons as set out above. We are also requesting the court to rule on the issue of Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Limited being allowed represent the employer in the particular circumstances particularly unless they disclose whether they or any associated company have a financial interest in the outcome. We are seeking that witness...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Case Number: TUD212. Labour Court
    • Ireland
    • Labour Court (Ireland)
    • 1 May 2021
    ...1994 Act for any alleged breach thereof. (See paragraph 45 of White J’s judgment inPetraitis v Philmic Limited T/A Premier Linen Services[2017] IEHC 831.) The Court, therefore, rejects that part of the Respondent’s submission quoted above.The Court, however, accepts the Respondent’s submiss......
  • Case Number: LCR22410. Labour Court
    • Ireland
    • Labour Court (Ireland)
    • 1 June 2021
    ...1994 Act for any alleged breach thereof. (See paragraph 45 of White J’s judgment inPetraitis v Philmic Limited T/A Premier Linen Services[2017] IEHC 831.) The Court, therefore, rejects that part of the Respondent’s submission quoted above.The Court, however, accepts the Respondent’s submiss......
  • Case Number: TED2111. Labour Court
    • Ireland
    • Labour Court (Ireland)
    • 1 May 2021
    ...1994 Act for any alleged breach thereof. (See paragraph 45 of White J’s judgment inPetraitis v Philmic Limited T/A Premier Linen Services[2017] IEHC 831.) The Court, therefore, rejects that part of the Respondent’s submission quoted above.The Court, however, accepts the Respondent’s submiss......
  • Case Number: DWT218. Labour Court
    • Ireland
    • Labour Court (Ireland)
    • 1 May 2021
    ...1994 Act for any alleged breach thereof. (See paragraph 45 of White J’s judgment inPetraitis v Philmic Limited T/A Premier Linen Services[2017] IEHC 831.) The Court, therefore, rejects that part of the Respondent’s submission quoted above.The Court, however, accepts the Respondent’s submiss......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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