PCD161

FULL RECOMMENDATION PCA/16/1 DETERMINATIONNO.PCD161 r-134586-pca-13/SR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 Section 8 A (5), of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2001 PARTIES : SR TECHNICS IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY A & L GOODBODY) - AND - KEVIN CARROLL DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No r-134586-pca-13/SR.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 7th of April 2016, in accordance with Section 8A(5), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2001. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 31st of May 2016.

DETERMINATION:

This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal by a Worker (the Appellant) against the decision of a Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer made in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2010 (the Act) in his complaint of penalisation by SR Technics (the Respondent) contrary to Section 8A(5) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2001 as amended.

The Appellant’s employment with the Respondent was terminated on 3^rdJuly 2013. The Appellant made his complaint under the Act on 28^thJune 2013.

The Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer found that the complaint had been made outside the time limits laid down by the Act and that he had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Preliminary issue

The Court decided to consider the issue of the time limits set out in the Act as a preliminary issue. The Court in made this decision in the interest of efficiency of process taking account of the decision of the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer and of the fact that if the complaint was found to be outside of the statutory time limit such a determination would be determinative of the appeal in its entirety.

The Appellant’s complaint to the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer was made on 28^thJune 2013.

The Act at Schedule 1 provides in relevant part as follows

• (4) Subject to subparagraph (10), a rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this paragraph if it is presented to him or her after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

  (5) Notwithstanding subparagraph (4), a rights commissioner may entertain a complaint under this paragraph presented to him or her after the expiration of the period referred to in subparagraph (4) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration) if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint within that period was due to exceptional circumstances.

The Court sought evidence from the Appellant of any act or acts of penalisation which he might contend had taken place within the time period set out in the Act at Schedule 1. The Appellant did not put before the Court detail of any such act or acts of penalisation within that period.

The Appellant made no application to the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer for an extension of time. The Appellant made no such application to the Court.

In all of the circumstances the Court must find that the complaint of penalisation within the time limit set out at Schedule 1 of the Act has not been made out.

Determination

The Court determines that the complaint of the Appellant has not made out a complaint of penalisation in contravention of the Act at Section 8A(5). The decision of the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer is affirmed. The appeal fails.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
4th July 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.