Naming Incorrect Parties to WRC Proceedings

Naming Wrong Employer

A recent case before the Workplace Relations Commission (A Lorry Driver -v- A Waste Management Company (ADJ-00024354)) examined the factors that will be reviewed when one party to the proceedings is wrongly named. 

By way of background, the High Court In County Louth VEC -v- Equality Tribunal [2009] IEHC 370 outlined the circumstances in which proceedings before a statutory tribunal can be amended and held that: “If it is permissible in court proceedings to amend pleadings where the justice of the case requires it, then, a fortiori, it should also be permissible to amend a claim as set out in a form such as an originating document before a statutory tribunal, so long as the general nature of the complaint remains the same.”

 The Labour Court in Travelodge Management Limited -v- Sylvia Wach EDA1511 stated that: The ratio of that case appears to be that the procedures adopted by statutory tribunals in relation to the amendment of non-statutory forms used in the initiation of claims should not be more stringent than those that apply in the ordinary courts. That is in line with the generally accepted principle that statutory tribunals, such as this Court, should operate with the minimum degree of procedural formality consistent with the requirements of natural justice.

And went on to say

 “It could cogently be argued that in keeping with the decision in County Louth VEC v Equality Tribunal, and by application of the principle of equivalence, the Court should not adopt a more stringent stance in relation to the substitution of parties that is available in the High Court pursuant to that rule.”

These cases were cited with approval in A Civil Engineer v A Concrete Manufacturing Company (ADJ-00027348).

Trading v Registered Name

In the present case, the employer submitted that the employee had referred the complaint against the trading name of the business (XXX YYY ZZZ) and contended that the correct identity of his employer was XXX YYY Limited. The employer submitted that the employee had therefore pursued the incorrect employer and was now statute barred in their claim.

The employee submitted that he was not aware of the correct name of the legal entity that employed him and that the trading name of the business (XXX YYY ZZZ) was included on all documentation and correspondence which he received from the employer. The employee contended that his employer was fully aware of this complaint at all material times and he sought leave to amend the name of the employer to that of the correct legal entity which had employed him.

Progress a Claim?

Therefore, the question the WRC was required to decide was whether or not it is legally permissible for that forum to accede to the employee’s application to substitute the correct respondent in this case. In considering this issue, the WRC took cognisance of the Labour Court case of Auto Depot Limited -v- Vasile Mateiu UDD1954. In this case the employee, Mr. Mateui, made an application in the course of proceedings before the Labour Court under the Unfair Dismissals Act to amend the name of the employer from “Auto Depot Tyres Ltd” to “Auto Depot Ltd”. The Labour Court allowed the request for the amendment and in doing so held that: “Accordingly, the Court considers the erroneous inclusion of ‘Auto Depot Tyres Ltd’ on the WRC complaint form to be no more than a technical error. The Court is fully satisfied that the employer’s name can simply be amended on the paperwork to reflect its correct legal title, that of ‘Auto Depot Ltd’”.

Disproportionate Response?

The Labour Court, in this case, provided an extensive analysis of the jurisprudence and relevant authorities on this subject and set out a number of factors which it took into consideration in arriving at its decision on this matter. In particular, the WRC took cognisance of the following paragraphs from the decision:

“Having regard to the foregoing and relying in particular on the High Court decision in Capital Food Emporium, the Court is fully satisfied that the correct employer has been pursued by the Complainant. The Court is further fully satisfied that the respondent party that appeared before the Court was the Complainant’s employer. That party was fully aware of the Complainant’s complaints to the WRC from July 2017. He knew precisely from whom the complaints were and to what the complaints referred. The respondent party has had a full opportunity to be heard and to answer those complaints. The Court is therefore equally satisfied that the employer will suffer no prejudice or injustice by its decision on this preliminary matter. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is also conscious of the High Court Judgment in O’Higgins -v- University College Dublin & Another (2013) 21 MCA wherein Mr Justice Hogan held: “Even if the wrong party was, in fact, so named, no prejudice whatever was caused by reason of that error (if, indeed, error it be) …. In these circumstances, for this Court to hold that the appeal was rendered void by reason of such a technical error would amount to a grossly disproportionate response and deprive the appellant of the substance of her constitutional right of access to the courts.”

Declining jurisdiction in these circumstances would certainly amount to a “grossly disproportionate response” as envisaged in O’Higgins.

The Court is further satisfied that this approach is in line with the generally accepted principle that statutory tribunals, such as this Court, should operate with the minimum degree of procedural formality consistent with the requirements of natural justice. On that point the decision of the Supreme Court in Halal Meat Packers (Ballyhaunis) Ltd v Employment Appeals Tribunal [1990] I.L.R.M 293 is relevant. Here Walsh J stated, albeit obiter, as follows: - “This present case indicates a degree of formality, and even rigidity, which is somewhat surprising. It is a rather ironic turn in history that this Tribunal which was intended to save people from the ordinary courts would themselves fall into rigidity comparable to that of the common law before it was modified by equity.”

Determining Factors

The WRC was satisfied that the general principles enunciated by the Labour Court in the Auto Depot Limited case could also be applied in the circumstance of the instant case. In considering this matter, the WRC took the following factors into consideration:

• The employee named the trading name of his employer as the employer in these proceedings as opposed to the actual name of the limited company that employed him; 
• The employer was fully on notice and accepted these proceedings from the outset;
• No issue regarding the issue concerning the incorrect employer was notified by the employee’s employer to either the employee or the WRC prior to the hearing date; and
• The correct employer appeared at the hearing with its legal representatives.

Having regard to the foregoing, the WRC was satisfied that the correct employer had been pursued in relation to these complaints and that the misstatement by the employee of his employer’s name on the Complaint Referral Form constitutes a technical error.