The High Court has quashed a Labour Court decision awarding €35,000 to a former Panda Waste employee, ruling that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to hear his unfair dismissal appeal. The court did not decide the merits of the dismissal claim or determine what would happen to the appeal next.
The case arose after the employee was dismissed on 21 July 2014. He brought an unfair dismissal claim to a Rights Commissioner, who recommended that it be dismissed in September 2015. After the Workplace Relations Act 2015 commenced on 1 October that year, the employee’s solicitor lodged an appeal with both the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) and the Labour Court.
The EAT said it could no longer accept appeals lodged after the new system began and forwarded the appeal to the Labour Court. The Labour Court heard the matter as a full, de novo appeal, with both sides represented and evidence heard. On 30 March 2016, it found that the employee had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him €35,000 compensation.
Panda Waste later challenged the Labour Court’s authority to hear the appeal. It argued that transitional provisions preserved the former appeal route to the EAT for claims brought before 1 October 2015. The former employee argued that a separate transitional provision gave the Labour Court jurisdiction as well.
Justice Faherty found that the claim had been brought before the new law commenced and that section 80(2) preserved the earlier appeal structure. She ruled that the EAT, rather than the Labour Court, had jurisdiction. The inclusion of parts of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993 in the relevant schedule did not displace that conclusion.
The court also rejected the argument that Panda Waste had lost its right to challenge the Labour Court’s jurisdiction by participating in the hearing. It found that the company had reasonably relied on guidance issued with the Labour Court appeal form, which indicated that the Labour Court was the appropriate forum. Participation could not give a statutory body jurisdiction it did not have.
The court granted an order of certiorari quashing the Labour Court’s decision. It noted that the employee had lodged a timely appeal with the EAT, but said it was not for the court to speculate about what would happen next or to rule on the EAT’s actions, as it was not a party to the judicial review. The judge said she would hear from the parties about any further order consequent on certiorari.