Tong v Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 April 2015
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2015] 4 JIEC 2701
• Docket Number: TU9/2014 - TU15/2014
• Date: 27 April 2015
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. TU9/2014 - TU15/2014

APPEAL(S) OF:

Sharon Tong

and

Orlaith Brennan

and

Vahida Gogic

and

Claire Duggan

and

Sarah Kent

and

Ciara Ward

and

Daiva Vaicekoniene

and

the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

Edinburgh Woollen Mill Limited

and

JN Realisations Limited

under

PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES ON TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS REGULATIONS 2003

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Ms. K.T. O'Mahony BL

Members: Mr. D. Hegarty

Mr. J. FLavin

heard this appeal in Cork on 27 April 2015

1 There was no attendance at the hearing on behalf of the second-named respondent by Ms. Nathalie Staakman, Zolfo Cooper, The Zenith Building, 26 Spring Gardens, Manchester M2 1AB, England

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-

2 These cases came to the Tribunal by way of the employees' appeal against the Rights Commissioner Decisions r-124538, 576, 585, 589, 600, 610, 614, and 624-tu-12 JOC under the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations, 2003.

3 The first respondent's representative argued that the appeals of any appellants not present should be struck out for want of prosecution because the Tribunal's correspondence to all litigants made clear that postponements could only be granted on foot of an application made to a sitting division of the Tribunal.

4 ST (one of the appellants) countered that she had medical certificates for two of the appellants, that the same legal point was common to all appeals and that she herself would make the case for all the appellants.

Preliminary Issue

5 While the first respondent had two preliminary issues in this matter, it was first seeking a determination on the issue as to whether the claims in the first instance had been lodged within the prescribed time limit with the Rights Commissioner Service.

6 The employees who were appealing the Rights Commissioner decisions alleged that a breach of section 4 (1) of the Regulations had occurred in that their rights and conditions of employment had not been transferred to the purported new employer (the transferee).

7 Section 10 (6) of the Regulations prescribes the time limit for lodging a claim with the Rights Commissioner Service. It provides:

8 A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this Regulation unless it is presented to the commissioner within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of...