Zalewski v Adjudication Office & ors [2021] IESC 24_3 (06 April 2021)

Zalewski v Adjudication Office & ors [2021] IESC 24_3 (06 April 2021)

The Workplace Relations Act 2015, by excluding the employer from being heard in District Court enforcement proceedings and by failing to provide an appeal on the merits to a court, violates constitutional requirements for the administration of justice and fair procedures. The WRC's process, as structured, is not a limited judicial function within Article 37.1 but an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power under Article 34.1.

Citation
[2021] IESC 24_3
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Tomasz Zalewski; Respondent: The Workplace Relations Commission; Respondent: An Adjudication Officer [Y]; Respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party: Buywise Discount Stores Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal (dissenting Judgment)
Outcome
Dissenting judgment—would have found the relevant sections of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 unconstitutional as applied to unfair dismissal adjudication and enforcement.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Separation of Powers, Right to Fair Procedures, Judicial Power, Workplace Relations Commission, Appeal Rights
Constitutional Law Employment Law Administrative Law Unfair Dismissal Separation of Powers Right to Fair Procedures Judicial Power Workplace Relations Commission +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tomasz Zalewski

Applicant/appellant

The Workplace Relations Commission

Respondent

An Adjudication Officer [Y]

Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondent

Buywise Discount Stores Limited

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal (dissenting Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Workplace Relations Commission's adjudication of unfair dismissal claims constitutes the administration of justice requiring a court and judge under Article 34.1 of the Constitution or is a limited judicial function under Article 37.1
  2. 2 Whether the enforcement mechanism under the Workplace Relations Act 2015, which excludes the employer from being heard in the District Court, is constitutional
  3. 3 Whether the lack of an appeal on the merits to a court from the WRC or Labour Court is constitutional

Ratio Decidendi

The Workplace Relations Act 2015, by excluding the employer from being heard in District Court enforcement proceedings and by failing to provide an appeal on the merits to a court, violates constitutional requirements for the administration of justice and fair procedures. The WRC's process, as structured, is not a limited judicial function within Article 37.1 but an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power under Article 34.1.

Court Disposition

Dissenting judgment—would have found the relevant sections of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 unconstitutional as applied to unfair dismissal adjudication and enforcement.