LCR23084

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00050077 (CA-00061410-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 20 August 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 November 2024.

DECISION:

The Worker’s complaint relates to the termination of his employment by his former employer on 23 January 2023. The Worker was dismissed for failing to follow reporting procedures and unauthorised absence. The Worker told the Court that he feels that the sanction of dismissal was too severe, as he was unable to return to work from his home country at the relevant time as he needed to look after his mother who had complex medical issues. When asked what recommendation the worker sought from the Court, he said that he would like his job back as he would like to return to his life in Dublin.

Counsel on behalf of the employer told the Court that the termination of the worker’s employment was both substantially and procedurally fair. He was afforded fair procedures throughout the process leading to his dismissal and was afforded a right of appeal. In circumstances where he did not lodge his claim until over 12 months after his employment ended, he ought not be allowed circumvent the time limits contained in the Unfair Dismissals Acts by pursuing a claim under the 1969 Act. The delay alone should provide a basis to dismiss his appeal and/or a basis not to make any recommendation in favour of the Complainant

This matter on appeal to the Court is a trade dispute and not a dispute regarding a potential breach of employment legislation. The Court explained to the Worker that complaints about trade disputes are not matters of law, and the Court has no legal authority to administer justice in relation to breaches of employment rights. The Court’s role when investigating a complaint about a trade dispute is to hear the parties and set out its opinion on how the matter in dispute between the parties can be resolved.

In this case, the Worker delayed for over a year before lodging his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. He said that he did so, as he was unaware of his rights. As a matter of good industrial relations practice a worker with a workplace dispute should not delay in lodging a complaint where they fail to resolve that dispute directly with their employer.

Taking account of the length of time since the worker’s employment ceased and his delay in exhausting avenues open to him to address any workplace issues with his former employer, the Court is limited in what recommendation (if any) it can make to assist the parties resolve a legacy workplace dispute.

The Adjudication Officer found the termination of the worker’s employment was conducted properly from a HR and Industrial relations viewpoint and recommended that the employer consider on an ex-gratia payment €250 to cover the worker’s travel expenses to the oral hearing.

The Court notes that the Employer did not appeal the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation and, having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Court upholds that recommendation.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connollly
ÁM	______________________
9th December 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.