ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003313

Complaints for Resolution:

Venue: Ardboyne Hotel Navan, Co. Meath

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/07/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. 

Background

 The Complainant was employed as a worker from the 31^st August 2012 to the 22^nd June 2015. She alleges that she was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent by reason of redundancy on the 22^nd June 2015. However, shortly after the termination of her employment she became aware that a new worker was appointed to her position. She alleged that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment contrary to the terms of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. She filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 24^th March 2016.

The Complainant stated at the commencement of the hearing that the complaint filed under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 was being withdrawn.

Preliminary Issue/ Time limits

The Respondent’s representative outlined the following submission;

Section 41(6) of the Industrial Relations Act 2015 provides that an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. It is submitted that the complainant’s complaint is out of time.

Section 41(8) of the industrial Relations Act 2015 empowers an adjudication officer to extend the initial 6 months limitation period by no more than a further 6 months, if he or she is satisfied that the complaint within the initial period was due to “reasonable cause”.

In Cementation Skanska v Carroll the Labour Court stated that in considering whether “reasonable cause” exists, it was for the Complainant to show that there were reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The court continued;

The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say that 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 stature, it suggests an objective standard but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the Complainant at the material time. The Complainant’s failure to present the claim within the 6 month time limit must have been due to the “reasonable cause” relied upon. Hence, there must be a causal link between the circumstances sited and the delay and that the Complainant should satisfy the court as a matter of probability that had those circumstances not been present, he or she would have initiated the claim in time.

The Court went on to say the length of the delay should also be taken into account. A short delay might only require a slight explanation, whereas a long delay, might require more cogent reasons. It is generally accepted that ignorance of ones legal rights would not provide a justifiable excuse for a failure to bring a claim in time.

Complainant’s Submission in Relation to Time Limits:

The Complainant outlined the following submission;

That she is seeking a 6 month extension to the time limit in relation to her complaint for the following reasons;

In November 2015, she discovered the Respondent had hired a new employee to replace her. It was only when a Facebook advertisement appeared that she realised her redundancy was contrived. She stated that her termination date of the 22^nd June 2015 should not be counted in this context but replaced by the date of the Facebook advertisement in February 2016 as this was the date when she realised that the Respondent had replaced her with a new employee. She stated that this was the main reason that she is seeking an extension of the time limit.

The adjudication officer decided to reserve his decision on this matter until evidence on the substantive evidence was presented by both parties.

Respondent’s Submission on Substantive Matter:

The Respondent’s representative outlined the following submission;

The Complainant was made redundant because of a decline in numbers attending the school as can be seen in the attached role book extracts. The attendance for 2014/2015 was 21 children and the attendance for 2015/2016 was 10 children. The teacher/child ratio is 1:10. The Respondent had no choice but to make one position redundant. The Respondent used “last in first out” matrix for redundancy selection. The Complainant was the last person employed, therefore she was selected for redundancy. The Complainant referred to two people being employed in the organisation in February 2016 and December 2016. Both people were employed to provide short-term cover in the organisation.

Decision on Preliminary Matter:

The reason provided by the Complainant for seeking an extension of the time limit does not fall under the term “reasonable cause”, therefore I am not in a position to allow an extension of the time limit. Based on the evidence provided by both parties at the hearing, I find I am unable to adjudicate on this matter as the complaint was filed by the Complainant outside the 6 month time limit as provided for under Section 41(6) of the Industrial Relations Act 2015.

Dated:   8^th August 2016