EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE UD957/2012
appellant
Against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
EMPLOYEE
appellant
and
EMPLOYER respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. McGrath B.L.
Members: Mr C. McHugh
Mr F. Barry
heard this claim at Dublin on 19th September 2013
Representation:
____________
Appellant(s):
Respondent(s):
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This came before the Tribunal by way of an employee appealing the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner recommendation reference number r-114774-ud-11/JT dated 30th March 2012.
Determination on Preliminary Issue
We have considered the position of the parties. The respondent employer has brought a preliminary point to the attention of the Tribunal which goes right to the heart of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to proceed to hear the substantive matter.
The appellant’s unfair dismissal claim was heard before the Rights Commissioner some four months after he was purportedly made redundant in August 2011.
The Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation on the 30th Of March 2012. Evidence has been submitted (and not contradicted) to the effect that the recommendation was received by the parties on the 2nd of April by way of being posted out from the Rights Commissioner to the parties directly.
The Tribunal has no reason to doubt that the appellant was anxious to appeal this recommendation and indeed it seems he and his union representative discussed this fact once they knew the Rights Commissioner had found that the claim for unfair dismissals was not established.
The Tribunal is bound by the very strict time limit set out in Section 9(2) of the Unfair Dismissals At 1977. This time limit is not technical and not intended to be observed in spirit only. This is a strict and exacting time limit which does not allow for discretion.
The onus is on the appealing parties to get notice of intention of appeal within six weeks of the date on which the Rights Commissioner recommendation is communicated to the parties. The intention must be notified to the Tribunal as well as the other party.
In the circumstances before the Tribunal herein the six week period started on the 2nd of April 2012 and expired on the 14th of May 2012.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that the Tribunal was notified on the much later date of the 6th of June 2012 some three weeks late.
The Tribunal notes that the appellant prepared, signed and dated the T1A form on or about the 26th of April 2012 and do not doubt that it was the appellant’s intention to send the said T1A form in due course. However the appellant cannot specifically recall sending the form, cannot specifically recall where the form was sent to and where sent from. The appellant also cannot recall when he prepared the covering letter accompanying the form.
The only concrete evidence we have is the fact that the form is stamped received in the Tribunal much later than the six week time limited allowed.
The Tribunal has every sympathy for the appellant herein and appreciates that this must seem like an injustice to him and the Bone Fides of his case. But the Tribunal’s hands are tied. This time limit is without layout and without subjectivity. It does not allow, for example, for postal
delays. The onus rests and always lies with the party appealing the decision to get the notice of appeal in within the time limit allowed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)