Zalewski v Adjudication Office & ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a former employee of Company A, alleged unfair dismissal and non-payment in lieu of notice. Those statutory complaints were processed under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (the “2015 Act”).

An Adjudication Officer of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) opened a hearing on 26 October 2016, accepted documents, then adjourned. Before the reconvened date the officer unilaterally issued a decision dismissing the claims, wrongly recording that a full hearing had occurred. The Appellant sought judicial review.

The High Court (Judge Simons) quashed the WRC decision, but rejected broader constitutional challenges to the 2015 Act. The Supreme Court granted a leap-frog appeal; the Respondents cross-appealed on certain High Court findings and on costs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the adjudicative process established by the 2015 Act amounts to the “administration of justice” reserved to courts under Article 34 of the Constitution.
2. If not reserved to courts, whether the process is nonetheless valid under Article 37 as the exercise of “limited functions and powers of a judicial nature.”
3. Whether key procedural features of the 2015 Act (private hearings, absence of an oath, no explicit cross-examination right, no legal-qualification requirement for decision-makers) breach constitutional fair-procedure guarantees or Article 6 ECHR.
4. Consequent validity of the enforcement mechanism (ex parte District Court orders) and of criminal sanctions for non-compliance.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• The WRC process satisfies the five-fold McDonald test and therefore unconstitutionally exercises full judicial power.
• Even if Article 37 applies, the functions are not “limited” because decisions profoundly affect parties’ rights; lack of sworn evidence, public hearings, and cross-examination deny constitutional justice.
• Private hearings and documentary-only evidence facilitated the grave error in the Appellant’s case, showing systemic defects.

Respondents’ Arguments

• The fourth and fifth limbs of McDonald are not met: WRC decisions require District Court confirmation and are novel statutory remedies, not historically court orders.
• Any constitutional infirmity is cured by appeal to the Labour Court and further appeal on law to the High Court.
• Article 37 validates the scheme; informality, privacy and unsworn evidence are deliberate policy choices to keep the forum accessible.
• The Act implicitly permits cross-examination where fairness demands it; individual failings are remediable by judicial review, not by striking down the statute.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge O’Donnell, delivering the majority judgment, undertook a historical and comparative review of Irish, UK, Australian and US authorities on the separation of powers.

• The WRC decisional process possesses the first three McDonald limbs and, functionally, produces binding determinations of civil rights.
• Although enforcement requires a District Court order, that step is largely automatic; therefore the fourth limb is effectively met.
• Orders such as compensation or reinstatement are analogous to traditional court remedies, satisfying the fifth limb.
• Accordingly the WRC is engaged in the administration of justice—but those functions are “limited” because they are confined to specific employment statutes, subject to de novo Labour Court appeal, further High Court appeal on law, restricted in monetary jurisdiction, and open to judicial review.
• Article 37 therefore saves the scheme, but procedural shortcomings must still meet constitutional standards of fairness.
• Section 41(13) (mandatory private hearings) unjustifiably departs from the open-justice principle.
• Total absence of any power to take evidence on oath (and thus punish perjury) fails where credibility conflicts arise; the Act must at least allow an oath when required.
• Although the Act omits the word “cross-examination,” its text permits parties to “be heard” and “present evidence”; interpreted constitutionally, cross-examination must be allowed whenever fairness demands. The statute is therefore not invalid on that ground.
• No constitutional requirement exists that adjudication officers or Labour Court members hold legal qualifications; expertise may be acquired by other means.

Holding and Implications

Order: The Court declared unconstitutional (a) the blanket requirement for private hearings in s. 41(13); and (b) the absence of any statutory facility to administer an oath or sanction false testimony. The balance of the 2015 Act was upheld as a valid exercise of limited judicial functions under Article 37.

Implications: WRC hearings can henceforth be conducted in public unless privacy is specifically justified, and the Oireachtas must amend the Act (or the WRC must otherwise provide) for sworn evidence with attendant penalties when fairness so requires. The core WRC/Labour Court model survives, confirming that specialised non-court tribunals may constitutionally decide employment disputes, provided essential judicial safeguards are met. No new general precedent was set on costs or on the necessity for legally qualified adjudicators.