Zalewski v Adjudication Office & ors [2021] IESC 24_2 (06 April 2021)

Zalewski v Adjudication Office & ors [2021] IESC 24_2 (06 April 2021)

The Supreme Court held that while the WRC and its Adjudication Officers exercise limited judicial functions permissible under Article 37 of the Constitution, certain aspects of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 procedures were constitutionally deficient. Specifically, the lack of provision for hearings in public and the absence of a mechanism for administering oaths or affirmations in cases of disputed facts failed to meet constitutional standards of fair procedures. The Court found that the WRC's functions did not amount to the administration of justice contrary to Article 34, but the procedures must be amended to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements.

Citation
[2021] IESC 24_2
Parties
Appellant: Tomasz Zalewski; Respondents: Adjudication Officer, The Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Partly allowed; declaration of constitutional invalidity of certain procedures; order for legislative amendment
Legal Topics
Administration of Justice, Separation of Powers, Fair Procedures, Unfair Dismissal, Powers of Adjudication Officers, Article 34 and 37 of the Constitution, Workplace Relations Act 2015
Constitutional Law Employment Law Administrative Law Administration of Justice Separation of Powers Fair Procedures Unfair Dismissal Powers of Adjudication Officers +2 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tomasz Zalewski

Appellant

Adjudication Officer, The Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and its Adjudication Officers exercise the administration of justice contrary to Article 34 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the procedures under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provide fair procedures and are constitutionally valid
  3. 3 Whether the functions exercised by Adjudication Officers are limited judicial functions permissible under Article 37 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while the WRC and its Adjudication Officers exercise limited judicial functions permissible under Article 37 of the Constitution, certain aspects of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 procedures were constitutionally deficient. Specifically, the lack of provision for hearings in public and the absence of a mechanism for administering oaths or affirmations in cases of disputed facts failed to meet constitutional standards of fair procedures. The Court found that the WRC's functions did not amount to the administration of justice contrary to Article 34, but the procedures must be amended to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed; declaration of constitutional invalidity of certain procedures; order for legislative amendment

Orders

  • Declaration that aspects of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 procedures are unconstitutional (lack of public hearings and absence of oaths/affirmations)
  • Suspension of the declaration to allow the Oireachtas to amend the legislation