Legal Rights of Workers – Introduction
Quite often, an employee will experience certain difficulties in the workplace, but despite the obvious stress and anxiety the actions or inactions of their employer may cause them, may not always have a sufficient legal complaint to bring forward. If an employee believes they are being mistreated, or their employment rights breached, it is critical that they identify the legal basis of any infringed right before commencing proceedings before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), the Labour Court or the Civil Courts.
Ordinarily, for the purposes of an employment dispute, it is necessary to exhaust the procedures of the WRC and the Labour Court before seeking the intervention of the Civil Courts. A recent decision of the High Court in Tomasz Pysz -v- Government of Ireland, Department of Foreign Affairs and Department of Labour [Record No. 2019/1444 P], clarifies those jurisdictional limits.
Workers Rights – Case Background
Mr Pysz previously brought a claim to the WRC pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act against the US Embassy arising from his alleged dismissal by the US Embassy on 07 July 2016. He also brought a claim pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act for unpaid wages during a period of sick leave from February to July 2016. The WRC Adjudication Officer issued a decision of 24 January 2018 that she did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint, as she found the respondent embassy was covered by ‘the doctrine of restrictive state immunity’.
Mr Pysz apparently failed to lodge an appeal to the Labour Court within the requisite time frame specified therein, and was appealing the decision of the Labour Court not to hear his case in separate proceedings, through the High Court.
However, in these proceedings, Mr Pysz identified his claim as “negligence, failure of duty of care, violations of civil liberties, Freedom of Information Act, prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, the Lisbon Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty and the European Constitution. Accomplice to modern-day slavery and human exploitation”.
Workers Rights in Ireland – Decision
The High Court noted that, in accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts, an employee bringing litigation proceedings must define precisely the issue of law and facts upon which they rely in establishing a cause of action and giving rise to a claim they make. The underlying facts on which a claim is based and which constitute the cause of action must be clearly identified. A bald plea of negligence, breach of duty or other similar misdeed, will not be sufficient.
In this case, the employee made several allegations that he was badly treated by his former employer. None of those allegations, even if a court were to take them as facts that an employee could prove, could give rise to the employee having a cause of action against their employer.
Therefore, for the purposes of this application, except the employee’s assertion that he was experiencing serious difficulties in his employment and sought assistance from various government departments who declined or refused to assist him, the question is whether those facts could ever give rise to a cause of action.
The High Court noted that the State has put an extensive statutory framework of protective legislation in place to ensure that employees have access to an enforcement mechanism if they believe their employer is disregarding the rights and obligations arising from the employment relationship.
The High Court went on to note that the employment relationship is essentially a private relationship between employer and employee and, even though it is highly regulated by the law of the land, the relationship is not one to which the State is a party and therefore cannot give rise to a cause of action against the State, other than in exceptional circumstances.
Mr Pysz claimed that the State had failed in its duty of care to him as an employee. However, the High Court disagreed, noting that there were various other mechanisms available to him that, if clearly identified, he could have pursued.
The High Court characterised Mr Pysz’s cause of action as amounting to a vague claim which suffers from at least a little hyperbole. Concerning the State’s duty to an employee, the High Court noted that it is discharged by the State’s implementation of a vast range of protective employment law statutes which can be invoked by the employee within a legal framework.
On this basis, the High Court was satisfied that Mr Pyzs’s claim of negligence and a breach of duty of care, as set out in his preliminary summons, did not give rise to a cause of action whether at common law or pursuant to the unidentified international laws and treaties referred to in his Statement of Claim.
Legal Rights of Workers – Takeaway
Very often an employee can identify poor management or human resources practices. However, poor practices, processes and procedures, in and of themselves, will not automatically give rise to a legitimate right of claim against an employer.
In pursuing a claim against an employer, through the WRC, the most common causes of action include complaints relating to pay, hours of work, terms and conditions of employment, unfair dismissal, industrial relations issues, equality issues, penalisation, minimum notice and discrimination on the grounds of being a fixed term or part-time worker. It is important that any employee consults with a duly qualified and experienced employment law solicitor before progressing a claim, if in doubt of the underlying cause of action.
