EDA2456

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00046812 ADJ-00049009 (ADJ-00046812 CA-00057569-002)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 12 January 2024. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 October 2024.

The following is the Determination of the Court.

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Ms Anna Lazaridou (the Complainant) against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 -2015 (the Act) against her employer Roe & Co Distillery (Diageo Ireland) (the Respondent).  The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well founded and was out of time. 

Background

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 1st February 2022. The Complainant was dismissed on 11th July 2022, during her probation period for alleged performance issues.  It is her complaint that she was discriminated on the grounds of race, family status, age and gender.

Preliminary issues

 The Respondent raised as an issue the fact that the Complainants complaints were out of time.  The Complainant’s employment came to an end on 11th July 2022. The Complainant did not lodge her complaint with the WRC until 6th July 2023.

The Complainant submitted that she wished to make an application for an extension of time.

She explained that she was applying for other jobs with the Respondent at the time and did not want to lodge a claim as she felt it might affect her chance of getting the job.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not established reasonable cause and that she only applied for one job in the period which was in August 2022. There was nothing preventing the Complainant from lodging her complaint after August 2022.

Conclusion of the Court on the Preliminary Matter

 TheCourt in the case of CementationSkanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll Determination WTC0338 established the test for deciding if an extension should be granted for reasonable cause. The test was set out in the following terms: -

It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.

The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only a slight explanation whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons. Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case.

The Complainant submitted that she delayed submitting her complaint because she was applying for another job with the Respondent.

The Court is satisfied that the Complainant’s complaint was presented to the WRC outside of the statutory time limit. The Complainant’s last date of employment was the 11th July 2022. The Court is satisfied that, if there was a contravention of the Act, that date is the last date when such a contravention took place. The Complainant’s claim was not presented to the Workplace Relations Commission until 6th July 2023 and was therefore outside of the statutory time limit.   The Court notes that the reason proffered by the Complainant was that she was applying for other jobs with the Respondent. The Court finds that this reason does not either explain the delay, and or afford an excuse for the delay. Therefore, her appeal must fail.

Determination

For all the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the complaint under the Act is statute-barred and therefore must fail.  The Court cannot proceed to hear the substantive matter.

Accordingly, the Complainant’s appeal is not allowed, and the Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so Determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
21st November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.