UDD2264 - Labour Court CELTIC WORKING PLATFORMS LTD (REPRESENTED BY TOM MALLON B.L., INSTRUCTED BY GEORGE V MALONEY & CO. SOLICITORS) - AND - MR CIAN CARLIN

• Judgment Date: 01 December 2022
• Year: 2022
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION; UD/21/79; ADJ-00030417, CA-00040670-001 DETERMINATION NO. UDD2264 ; SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 ; PARTIES: CELTIC WORKING PLATFORMS LTD; (REPRESENTED BY TOM MALLON B.L., INSTRUCTED BY GEORGE V MALONEY & CO. SOLICITORS); - AND -; MR CIAN CARLIN; DIVISION: Chairman: Ms Connolly Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham ; SUBJECT : 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00030417, CA-00040670-001; BACKGROUND : 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 10 December 2021 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 September, 2022. The following is the Determination of the Court:-; DETERMINATION: This is an appeal by Mr Cian Carlin against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00030417 dated 18 November 2021 given under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 (“the UD Act”) in a claim that he was unfairly dismissed by his former employer, Celtic Working Platforms Ltd, having made a protected disclosure as defined under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”). The Adjudication Officer held that he could not find that Mr Carlin was unfairly dismissed, as section 2(1)(c) of the UD Act sets out that provisions of the UD Act do not apply to a person who is employed by certain family members. A Notice of Appeal was received by the Labour Court on 10 December 2021 and a hearing conducted on 8 September 2022. For ease of reference the parties are referred to in this Determination using the same designation as at first instance. Hence, Mr Cian Carlin is referred to as “the Complainant” and Celtic Working Platforms is referred to as “the Respondent”.; Preliminary matter The Complainant raised a preliminary matter with the Court. He submitted that the Adjudication Officer’s finding that the UD Act did not apply to him, on the basis of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, was flawed for a number of reasons. Section 2(1) of the Act provides:- 2.— (1) Except in so far as any provision of this Act otherwise provides this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons: (c) a person who is employed by his spouse, civil partner within the meaning of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father, step-mother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, step-son, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister, is a member of his employer’s household and whose place of employment is a private dwellinghouse or a farm in or on which both the employee and the employer reside ,… The Complainant submitted that he was employed by a corporate entity and not by his father. He has not resided in the same building as his father for over twenty years. His place of employment was not the same private dwelling house or farm in or on which he or his father resides. As a result, section 2(1)(c) of the Act was not applicable to him.; The Respondent did not challenge this aspect of the submission and accepted the position...