Vincent Shields Solicitors Vincent Shields v Ms Veronica Dempsey (Represented by Gilvarry & Company Solicitors)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 April 2021
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2021] 4 JIEC 0606
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00021488 CA-00028187-002 DETERMINATION NO.IAD212
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Vincent Shields Solicitors Vincent Shields

and

Ms Veronica Dempsey (Represented by Gilvarry & Co Solicitors)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

IA/20/1

ADJ-00021488 CA-00028187-002

DETERMINATION NO.IAD212

Labour Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Geraghty

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: MsTanham

PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES (EMPLOYERS' INSOLVENCY) ACTS, 1984 TO 2012

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No..ADJ-00021488 CA-00028187-002

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 44, Workplace Relations Act 2015, Protection of Employees (Employer's Insolvency) Acts 1984 to 2012 on 26 March 2020.

3 A Labour Court Hearing took place on 24 March 2021. The following is the Determination of the Court:-

DETERMINATION:

4 This is an appeal by Ms. Dempsey, ‘the Complainant’, under the Protection of Employees (Employer's Insolvency) Act 1984, ‘the Act’, of a Decision of an Adjudication Officer, ‘AO’, that the Complainant had not cited the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, the Department’, as a Respondent in her complaint under the Act and that, accordingly, the AO did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

5 The Complainant was employed by a Solicitor's firm. The Principal of the firm died intestate in December 2017. The business closed in May 2018 and the Complainant was made redundant. The Complainant applied for payment in respect of her redundancy to be met from the Insolvency Fund. This was refused initially by the Department and the Complainant lodged a complaint under the Act with the Workplace Relations Commission. As outlined above, the AO decided that the WRC did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

6 The Complainant appealed to the Court.

7 The Complainant has since received payment from the Department.

8 The Court asked the Complainant's representative to make a submission as to why the matter should not be regarded as ‘moot’, in order that the Court might consider if it should hear the appeal.

9 Summary of Complainant's arguments in respect of the issue of mootness.

10 In making payment to the Complainant, the Department reserved the right to seek recoupment from the employer. Theoretically, it is possible that recoupment could be sought from the Complainant, though this is unlikely.

11 There is a gap in the Act, which failed to transcribe fully the terms of Directive 80/9874/EEC, which was identified in Re Davis Joinery Ltd., (2013) IEHC 353 and dealt with more fully in the case of Glegola v Minister for Social...