Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Healthcare Assistant

A Hospital

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00004877-001

26/05/2016

The Complainant maintained that she had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent Hospital. The Respondent treated her unfairly due to an accident at work on the 10^th April 2014. The process of Ill Health early retirement that was instituted was fundamentally flawed and unfair. She was unfairly Retired on the 29^th May 2015. The issue of how this was understood by both Parties was evidenced from Hospital correspondence which even by the start of November 2015 demonstrated that the Respondent had still not acknowledged that a Resignation or early retirement had taken place.

On the issue of time limits for the claim being lodged the Complainant cited evidence that the delay in lodging the claim until the 26^th May 2016 was due to good grounds and an extension of time should be granted.

(1)       Time Limits

The Complaint was Retired, following extensive Medical reviews, on Ill Health Grounds on the 29^th May 2015. She signed numerous forms and Pension application documents bearing that date.

The Complainant had until the 28^th November 2015 to lodge a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. Her claim was in fact lodged on the 26^th May 2016 – three days before the final 12 month deadline. The claim should be ruled out of time as there were no good grounds advanced to justify granting an extension beyond the 28^th November 2017.

(2)       Substantive Case

The Complaint had complex medical issues over and above any fall out from the accident in April 2014. The recommendation of the Occupational Health Physician was that she be granted Ill health early retirement with effect from the 29^th May 2015.

She was granted additional years under the Pension Scheme – a considerable financial benefit –in lieu of her early retirement.

All documentation clearly shows that the Complainant knowing and willingly resigned /accepted Early retirement on the 29th May 2015. Accordingly the claim has to be dismissed.

There are two issue for consideration in this case

Firstly the Time limits issue and depending on the findings on that point the Substantive case.

Time Limits:

All the very detailed documentation completed by the Complainant beginning with (1 )Resignation Form- HR 106 , (2) Section 51 Pension Benefits Form, and (3) Retirement Form HR 107(a) V1.3 were dated and signed by the Complainant on the 22^nd June 2015. All refer to an early Retirement date of the 29^th May 2015. The Complainant in evidence stated that in these matters she had taken advice (primarily from her husband) and was aware that the Trade Unions were also avail be for advice.

Regrettably due to the size and complexity of the Employer organisation and the multiplicity of claims/queries the Respondent took an overly long period in processing the paperwork. However there was no doubt that the Pensions/Payments would be back dated to the 29^th May 2015.

Even allowing for the bureaucratic delays I could find no reasonable grounds for believing that the Complainant could not have lodged, had she been minded or advised to, an Unfair Dismissals claim in the period to the 28^th November 2015.

I do not accept that an extension to the 26^th May 2016 for lodging the claim is warranted. This was not an inconsiderable delay and requires a very strong argument to justify. A delay, warranted by the Hospital‘s slow internal office procedures to the end of 2015 might be understandable but not until the end of May 2016.

I noted that comments of the Labour Court in the Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT 0038/2003

The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only slight explanation whereas a long delay might 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 sufficient prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the Complainant has a good arguable case.”

Accordingly the claim as lodged on the 26^th May 2016 is out of time and is dismissed.

In view of the Time Limits issue decision the Substantive case was not considered.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Decision as per Section 3 of this ADJ above.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00004877-001

The claim is not lodged In Time and no good reasons have been advanced to warrant the granting of an extension in which to lodge the claim.

The Claim is dismissed.