Woodies D.I.Y. Ltd (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation) v Krzysztof Andraszak

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 05 December 2022
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2022] 12 JIEC 0508
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00028194 CA-00036212-001 DETERMINATION NO. UDD2266 SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015

PARTIES:

Woodies D.I.Y. Limited (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)

and

Krzysztof Andraszak

FULL RECOMMENDATION

UD/22/62

ADJ-00028194 CA-00036212-001

DETERMINATION NO. UDD2266

SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015

Full Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Geraghty

Employer Member: Mr Murphy

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00028194 CA-00036212-001

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 2 May 2022 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 November 2022. The following is the Determination of the Court:-

DETERMINATION:

Background

3 Mr Andraszak, ‘the Complainant’, was a Team Leader with Woodies D.I. Y. Ltd., ‘the Respondent’. He commenced working for the Respondent in June 2006. On 10 December 2019 the Complainant received notice of his dismissal. He appealed that decision internally. On 4 March 2020, the Appeals Officer overturned the dismissal and imposed a lesser penalty. The Complainant advised the Respondent that he did not accept the decision and that he would be making a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission, ‘WRC’.

4 On 18 May 2020, the Complainant lodged a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, ‘the Act’ with the WRC.

5 An Adjudication Officer, ‘AO’, decided that the Complainant had not been dismissed, so the complaint was not well founded.

6 The Complainant appealed to this Court.

Preliminary Issue

7 The Respondent states that the Complainant was not dismissed as the decision to dismiss was rescinded on appeal. A lesser sanction was imposed.

8 Coverage of the Act applies when there is a dismissal. If there is no dismissal, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal. Therefore, the Court decided to hear the parties on the question of whether or not there had been a dismissal as a preliminary matter, on the basis that if the Court determined that there had been no dismissal then it would not have jurisdiction to hear the substantive case and if it determined that the matter was properly before it, the substantive issues could be dealt with at a later date.

9 Where dismissal is in dispute the burden of proof in establishing that there has been a dismissal rests with the party alleging unfair dismissal.

Summary of Complainant Arguments

10 On 10 December 2019, the Complainant was summarily dismissed. As a result of his...