Erdogan v Workplace Relations Commission (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was employed by Company A from 25 November 2015 until 14 February 2017 and disputes the manner of his dismissal. Following his termination, the Applicant initiated several claims and complaints with the Workplace Relations Commission. Initially, he filed an unfair dismissal claim on 26 March 2017, which was part-heard but later withdrawn before resumption. Subsequently, the Applicant made two further claims under different statutes, both of which were withdrawn.

The current judicial review concerns a complaint filed under Part VII of the Employment Equality Act 1998, submitted on 24 May 2018. The complaint alleges discrimination and victimisation by the Employer during employment and the disciplinary process leading to dismissal. The Employer objected to the complaint on the basis that it was filed outside the six-month statutory time-limit, calculated from the termination date or the Employer's response to the unfair dismissal claim in April 2017.

The Applicant contends that the time-limit should be extended due to alleged "misrepresentation" by the Employer, specifically that minutes of meetings produced at a hearing on 15 January 2018 were false and forged, and that Employer witnesses lied regarding dismissal circumstances. The Applicant argues these facts only came to light at that hearing, thus starting the time-limit from that date.

The Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer dismissed the complaint on 28 May 2019, finding it was out of time and that no evidence of misrepresentation was shown. The Applicant appealed to the Labour Court and simultaneously sought leave to apply for judicial review in the High Court. The High Court directed the leave application to be heard on notice, with the Employer opposing on grounds that the Labour Court appeal provides an adequate alternative remedy.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant’s complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 was filed within the prescribed six-month time-limit or if the time-limit should be extended due to alleged misrepresentation by the Employer.
2. Whether the statutory appeal before the Labour Court constitutes an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review.
3. Whether there was a breach of natural justice, specifically a failure "to hear the other side," by the adjudication officer addressing merits beyond the preliminary time-limit issue.
4. Whether the adjudication officer’s decision was unreasonable, offending fundamental reason and common sense.
5. Whether there was a breach of the rule against bias based on comments made by the adjudication officer during the hearing.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The complaint should be considered timely because the six-month time-limit only began to run on 15 January 2018, when alleged misrepresentations (fabricated minutes and false witness testimony) by the Employer were revealed during the unfair dismissal hearing.
• The adjudication officer improperly addressed the merits of the complaint, not limiting the hearing to the preliminary issue of time-limit.
• The decision was unreasonable and lacked fundamental fairness.
• The adjudication officer demonstrated bias through comments made during the hearing, implying predetermination of the matter.

Employer's Arguments

• The complaint was filed outside the six-month statutory time-limit and no credible evidence of misrepresentation was presented to justify extension.
• The pending appeal before the Labour Court provides an adequate alternative remedy, being a de novo appeal with formal procedures, including evidence on oath and cross-examination.
• The judicial review is not the appropriate forum to resolve factual disputes such as allegations of fabricated evidence.
• The adjudication officer’s comments do not amount to bias; such remarks are normal procedural interventions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified the central issue as whether the statutory appeal before the Labour Court is an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review. Drawing on established jurisprudence, the court emphasized that the appropriateness of the remedy depends on common sense, fairness, and the capacity to address the issues raised.

The Labour Court appeal was noted to be a de novo hearing with formal procedures, including the ability to hear evidence under oath and cross-examination, and further appeal rights on points of law to the High Court. This structure makes it well-suited to resolve factual disputes, including allegations of fabricated evidence.

The court found that the Applicant’s allegations of misrepresentation and bias were essentially factual disputes inappropriate for judicial review, which is primarily concerned with legality rather than merits. The alleged bias was based on remarks made during the hearing, which did not meet the high threshold for establishing objective bias.

Consequently, the court concluded that judicial review was not necessary to vindicate any deficiency in the first-instance hearing, and that the Labour Court appeal provides an adequate and more appropriate forum for resolving the dispute.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the application for leave to apply for judicial review.

This decision ends the High Court proceedings, leaving the Labour Court appeal as the proper forum for adjudicating the Applicant’s claims. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reinforces the principle that judicial review is not the appropriate procedure to resolve factual disputes or merits-based challenges where a statutory appeal exists.

Regarding costs, the court provisionally decided that each party should bear its own costs, considering the Applicant’s status as a litigant in person and the early stage at which the proceedings were dismissed.