The High Court quashed a Workplace Relations Commission decision rejecting a worker’s unfair-dismissal complaint after the adjudication officer issued a ruling before a scheduled hearing to hear evidence. The court declined to consider the worker’s wider constitutional and human-rights challenges, finding he lacked standing to pursue them on the facts before it.
The worker had been employed by Buywise Discount Store Limited as a security guard from around 31 March 2012. He later became a store supervisor and assistant manager. After his dismissal, he brought complaints to the WRC alleging unfair dismissal and non-payment of money in lieu of notice.
At a hearing on 26 October 2016, the employer’s representative asked for an adjournment because a witness was unavailable. The worker’s solicitor did not object, and a further hearing was set for 13 December to hear evidence. The worker attended that day with his solicitor, but was told the hearing had been scheduled in error and that the adjudication officer had already issued her decision.
The written decision, dated 16 December, recorded that the adjudication hearing had taken place on 26 October and referred to evidence and findings. It declared the unfair-dismissal complaint not well founded. The High Court noted that the decision contained material factual errors, including that the worker and his solicitor had not advanced argument or evidence at the hearing.
The respondents accepted that the decision should be quashed and the complaint returned to the WRC for a new hearing before a different adjudication officer. They described the premature decision as an administrative error. Mr Justice Meenan said that explanation lacked credibility in light of the factual errors, the failure to follow basic fair procedures and what happened on 13 December. He said the failure to follow fair procedures had produced the decision, and noted that the WRC’s stated procedures provided for parties to give evidence, call witnesses and question the other side’s witnesses.
The worker also sought to challenge provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, arguing that the system lacked safeguards including a requirement for adjudication officers to have legal qualifications, evidence under oath, penalties for false evidence and public hearings. The respondents argued that, once they conceded the decision must be quashed and the case reheard, the constitutional challenge was speculative and the worker lacked standing.
The court agreed. It held that the worker would return to the WRC for a fresh hearing, and the evidence before it did not show he was in real or imminent danger of being adversely affected by the operation of the legislation. The court therefore rejected the constitutional and European Convention claims for lack of standing. It did not rule on the validity of the challenged provisions.