An employment rights case has been delayed after a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator said she could not order the press to shield the identity of a social media company as the client of the subcontractor defending the claim until an expected High Court judgment on the extent of anonymisation in tribunal hearings.
The impasse arose during a preliminary hearing by video-conference into a statutory complaint by Davide Carbone against CPL Solutions Ltd, trading as Covalen, when a representative of the employer sought the shielding order.
Covalen’s advocate, Mark Comerford of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (Ibec), said the firm had been engaged as a “managed service provider for a client” and asked adjudication officer Máire Mulcahy to direct the press not to identify that company if its name came up in the course of the proceedings.
Ms Mulcahy asked him for reasons.
“Commercial sensitivity, I suppose. While the complainant was doing the work of the client, the client had outsourced the work to CPL Solutions, trading as Covalen,” Mr Comerford said. He added that the claim had not been pursued against “the social media client”.
“So what you’re saying is commercial sensitivities,” Ms Mulcahy said.
“Commercial sensitivities, and the fact that there’s no employment relationship,” Mr Comerford said.
“What do you say, Mr Carbone?” the adjudicator asked.
Mr Carbone replied: “For me, it’s fine, yes for me, it’s fine.”
[ Man awarded €12,000 after being subjected to ‘homophobic assault’ at workOpens in new window ]
“Now, I hear what you’re saying, Mr Carbon ... but the matter of anonymisation of parties before a [WRC] hearing is a matter currently before the High Court and the WRC has an obligation to dispense justice in public,” Ms Mulcahy said.
“I’m not requesting the parties to the complaint are anonymised, just the party not party to the complaint,” Mr Comerford said.
However, Ms Mulcahy said the matter before the High Court case concerned a situation “where there was a request to anonymise a particular party in the case; it wasn’t the respondent”.
“I’m not going to agree, Mr Comerford, at this point,” she said. Noting the presence of a journalist at the hearing, she said: “I can’t necessarily direct him on this matter given that this issue is before the High Court.”
“On that basis, I’d like to adjourn to seek further legal advice internally in Ibec,” Mr Comerford said.
Ms Mulcahy decided she would reserve her position on Mr Comerford’s application for a media direction.
“I have to be cognisant of the WRC’s responsibilities in all this. I regret it very much, but I am going to adjourn until the High Court decides on the extent of anonymisation that applies,” she said.
She told the parties the High Court would “possibly issue in the next two months” and that she would “try to get this matter heard as soon as possible” after that, before closing the hearing.
The statute under which the complaint arose was not stated during the short hearing. Mr Carbone, who represented himself, referred to the payment of a bonus under a contract as being at issue.
