The Supreme Court held that the Workplace Relations Commission’s adjudication procedures under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 were inconsistent with the Constitution and could not rely on Article 37 for protection. The Court said the process involved the administration of justice, which the Constitution reserves to courts, and that the procedures also breached constitutional rights to fair procedures. It invited submissions on the precise orders to follow; the judgment did not specify those orders.
The ruling came in an appeal by Tomasz Zalewski, who had worked at a Costcutter convenience store on Dublin’s North Strand from 2012 to 2016. After his employer dismissed him for alleged gross misconduct, he brought claims under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
At a brief WRC hearing in October 2016, both sides understood that the matter had been adjourned. When Mr Zalewski returned for a later hearing, he was told the adjudication officer had already decided the case and that the hearing notice had issued in error. The officer’s written decision appeared to describe a full hearing. The decision was not contested and was quashed in the judicial review proceedings. The constitutional challenge to the statutory scheme continued.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the adjudication process in the case fell within the administration of justice under Article 34. The justices disagreed on whether Article 37, which permits non-court bodies to exercise limited judicial functions in non-criminal matters, could protect the scheme. In the judgment delivered by Mr Justice William McKechnie, he concluded it could not: the WRC’s employment jurisdiction and potential remedies were too far-reaching to be “limited” functions and powers. He also concluded that the procedures breached constitutional fair-procedure rights, including because the legislation did not provide for evidence to be given on oath and required hearings to be held in private. He said the absence of an express cross-examination provision was not, by itself, fatal, provided officers permitted cross-examination where fairness required it.
This is Mr Justice McKechnie’s judgment, not a single set of reasons shared by every member of the Court. It records agreement among all members that the adjudication process involved the administration of justice, while noting disagreement on the Article 37 issue. The judgment also states that, given the constitutional conclusions, it was unnecessary to decide the separate European Convention claim.