Zalewski v The Workplace Relations Commission (Approved) (Rev 1) [2020] IEHC 178 (21 April 2020)

Zalewski v The Workplace Relations Commission (Approved) (Rev 1) [2020] IEHC 178 (21 April 2020)

The High Court held that the necessity of applying to the District Court to enforce decisions of adjudication officers or the Labour Court, and the District Court's discretion to modify the form of relief, means that these bodies do not exercise the administration of justice within the meaning of Article 34 of the Constitution. The procedures under the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as applied to the applicant's claims, do not breach constitutional requirements.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 178
Parties
Applicant: Tomasz Zalewski; Respondent: The Workplace Relations Commission; Respondent: An Adjudication Officer (Rosaleen Glackin); Respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party: Buywise Discount Stores Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Constitutional Challenge
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused on constitutional grounds; order of certiorari granted by consent to quash the adjudication officer's decision of 16 December 2016.
Legal Topics
Administration of Justice, Unfair Dismissal, Payment of Wages, Separation of Powers, Judicial Power, Procedural Fairness
Constitutional Law Employment Law Administrative Law Administration of Justice Unfair Dismissal Payment of Wages Separation of Powers Judicial Power +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tomasz Zalewski

Applicant

The Workplace Relations Commission

Respondent

An Adjudication Officer (Rosaleen Glackin)

Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondent

Buywise Discount Stores Limited

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Constitutional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Workplace Relations Act 2015 involves the administration of justice within Article 34 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the procedures under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 are constitutionally deficient, particularly regarding evidence on oath, cross-examination, and public hearings
  3. 3 Whether the adjudication officers and Labour Court exercise judicial power reserved to courts

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the necessity of applying to the District Court to enforce decisions of adjudication officers or the Labour Court, and the District Court's discretion to modify the form of relief, means that these bodies do not exercise the administration of justice within the meaning of Article 34 of the Constitution. The procedures under the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as applied to the applicant's claims, do not breach constitutional requirements.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused on constitutional grounds; order of certiorari granted by consent to quash the adjudication officer's decision of 16 December 2016.

Orders

  • Order of certiorari quashing the decision of the adjudication officer dated 16 December 2016 (by consent)
  • Refusal of further declaratory reliefs on constitutional grounds