The High Court has refused to quash an Employment Appeals Tribunal decision concerning an unappealed Rights Commissioner recommendation in an employment dispute, despite finding that the tribunal acted outside its statutory powers.
In a judgment delivered on 31 May 2019, Mr Justice Binchy ruled that the tribunal had erred in law when it declined to make an implementation order in respect of a recommendation against Keegan Quarries Limited. The recommendation included reinstatement for Jurij Bondarenko following his dismissal and €2,000 compensation under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.
The dispute arose after Mr Bondarenko brought claims against Keegan Quarries and Keegan Precast Limited. Keegan Quarries maintained that its operations and staff had transferred to Keegan Precast in 2011, and that Keegan Precast was Mr Bondarenko’s employer. The judge said the evidence before him did not resolve which company employed him.
In 2015, a Rights Commissioner issued identical recommendations against both companies, including reinstatement. Keegan Precast appealed. In May 2016, the Labour Court upheld the unfair dismissal finding against that company but substituted €42,000 compensation for reinstatement. Keegan Quarries did not appeal the separate recommendation against it. Mr Bondarenko later sought its implementation through the tribunal.
The tribunal declined, reasoning that the Rights Commissioner could not issue two determinations for one claim and that the recommendation against Keegan Quarries was unenforceable. Mr Bondarenko sought judicial review, arguing that the tribunal’s role was limited to checking whether the statutory conditions for implementation had been met.
Justice Binchy agreed that the tribunal had no authority to decide that the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation was invalid. The recommendation remained undisturbed, and the tribunal should not have considered the Labour Court’s decision against the separate company when deciding whether to implement it. The judge also found that the tribunal had no jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal implementation application under legislation in force from October 2015, but declined to quash its decision on that ground, noting that neither party had pleaded the point and both had proceeded before the tribunal.
The court nevertheless refused certiorari and all other relief sought. It found that Mr Bondarenko had pursued parallel claims and remained silent about the outstanding recommendation during the Labour Court appeal. Although his counsel said he would credit any recovery against the other award, the judge concluded that the court could not ensure this through the relief sought and that granting it could enable double recovery for one dismissal. The €42,000 Labour Court award against Keegan Precast therefore remained in place; the court did not order implementation of the recommendation against Keegan Quarries.
The judge also noted that the tribunal had not addressed the separate €2,000 recommendation under the 1994 Act. The judgment says that omission would be taken into account when costs were considered; it does not record a costs order in the supplied text.