Zalewski v Adjudication Office & ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, formerly employed by Company A, claimed that he had been summarily and unfairly dismissed after a series of robberies at the workplace. Acting on advice from Attorney [Last Name], he lodged complaints for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions before an Adjudication Officer of The Commission under the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

At the initial listing the employer sought an adjournment, which was granted. When the matter reconvened, the parties were informed in a corridor that a written decision had already issued the previous week – without any oral hearing, sworn evidence or cross-examination. The purported decision contained factual inaccuracies suggesting a full hearing had occurred.

The Appellant commenced judicial-review proceedings. In the High Court, Judge Simons quashed the decision but rejected broader constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court (full panel) heard the Appellant’s appeal; the judgment analysed whether the statutory scheme impermissibly vested the administration of justice in non-judicial bodies and whether the procedures satisfied constitutional fair-trial guarantees.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Does the decision-making framework for Adjudication Officers under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 constitute the administration of justice contrary to Article 34 of the Constitution?
2. If not, can the framework be salvaged under Article 37 as the exercise of “limited functions and powers of a judicial nature”?
3. Are the procedural safeguards (oath, cross-examination, public hearing, independence) afforded by the Act constitutionally adequate?
4. Is the enforcement mechanism in s. 43 of the Act—whereby the District Court must, without hearing the employer, make an order enforcing the decision—constitutionally valid?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Adjudication Officer exercised core judicial powers: determining rights, awarding remedies up to two years’ salary, and issuing enforceable orders. Hence Article 34 applies.
• The absence of sworn evidence, cross-examination and public hearings breached the Appellant’s Re Haughey fair-procedure rights.
• s. 43’s “rubber-stamp” enforcement by the District Court deprived employers of audi alteram partem and showed that the initial decision was final, not “limited”.
• Article 37 could not save the regime because the powers were neither modest nor subject-matter-limited; they included potential criminal enforcement under s. 51.

Respondents' Arguments

• The scheme does not administer justice: Adjudication Officers cannot themselves enforce decisions; enforcement requires a fresh application to the District Court.
• Historically, employment disputes were often resolved outside the courts; therefore the fifth limb of McDonald v. Bord na gCon was not met.
• Even if judicial in nature, the powers are “limited” and thus permissible under Article 37, given: confined subject matter; capped compensation; a right of appeal to the Labour Court and on law to the High Court; and availability of judicial review.
• The legislative intention was to create an informal, non-legalistic forum, consistent with access to justice and proportionality.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge MacMenamin, writing for the Court, applied the McDonald test:

• Dispute of rights (limbs 1–3). Adjudication Officers decide legal rights, determine liability, and their decisions are final unless appealed.
• Enforcement (limb 4). Although the District Court must endorse orders, the statute compels it to do so without hearing the employer; this shows the original decision is effectively enforced by the State’s executive power.
• Historical character (limb 5). Employment disputes—wrongful and unfair dismissal—have long been within the courts’ domain (e.g., Circuit Court appeals for almost 40 years).

Because all five limbs were met, the scheme amounted to administering justice. The Court rejected the Respondents’ fallback reliance on Article 37; the powers were not “limited” (they include reinstatement orders, compensation up to two years’ pay, contempt-like criminal sanctions, and even dis-application of national law under EU doctrine).

The Court also found multiple procedural deficiencies: no express power to take evidence on oath; no guaranteed right of cross-examination; private hearings by default; and a lack of secure judicial independence in appointments. Section 43’s “rubber-stamp” enforcement mechanism was singled out as incompatible with fair-procedures and constitutional justice.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The statutory procedures governing Adjudication Officers under the Workplace Relations Act 2015, including the enforcement mechanism in s. 43, are unconstitutional as they vest the administration of justice in a body that is not a court established under Article 34 and fail to afford constitutionally required safeguards.

Implications: The decision invalidates current first-instance adjudication and enforcement processes within The Commission. The Oireachtas will have to amend the legislation to ensure (a) hearings on oath, (b) rights of cross-examination, (c) public sittings save in exceptional cases, (d) independent appointment and tenure protections, and (e) constitutionally compliant enforcement procedures. No new precedent on damages was set, but significant legislative reform is required for employment-law dispute resolution.