ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011102
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Job Applicant | A Recruitment Agency |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00014850-001 | 08/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/01/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent, a recruitment agency, discriminated against her due to her age, by not forwarding her job application to a client organisation. The Respondent refutes this allegation and contends that the Complainant's application was forwarded to the relevant parties in the client organisation. The Respondent puts forward that it had no input into who was shortlisted for interview. The Complainant lodged a Complaint Form with the WRC on 8th October 2017.
|
Preliminary Argument – Time Limits:
Respondent’s Submissions
As a preliminary point the Respondent submits that the Complainant’s claim is outside the statutory time limits within which a claim can be brought, in accordance with Section 77 of the Act which states as follows:
(5) ( a ) Subject to paragraph (b) , a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.
( b ) On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.
( c ) This subsection does not apply in relation to a claim not to be receiving remuneration in accordance with an equal remuneration term.
The Respondent submits that the Complainant applied for a specific role on 5th February 2017. The Respondent acknowledged the Complainant's application and duly forwarded same to the appropriate contact person in the client organisation for consideration.
The client organisation reviewed all applications and took the decision not to shortlist the Complainant for interview. The Respondent informed the Complainant of this outcome by way of email on 9th March 2017. The Respondent contends that the alleged date of contravention, if any, could only be on or before 9th March 2017 thus the relevant period for raising a claim under the Act is from 9th March 2017 to 8th September 2017.
Although the Complainant completed a form ES 1 on 5th September the Respondent submits that this form is utilised to warn a respondent of a possible legal claim under the Equal Status Act and is not in itself a lodgement of a claim.
It is the Respondent's belief that the claim lodged by the Complainant on 8th October 2017 is one month outside the six-month time-period and as such the Adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.
Complainant's Submission
The Complainant submits that she was unsure that she had been discriminated against until she received a letter from the client organisation on 23rd August 2017, which in her view indicated that the Respondent had not sent her application through to the client organisation for consideration. Up to that point she had an idea that she had been discriminated against, but she could not be sure. However, when questioned at the hearing on this she stated that she had a sense in March she had been discriminated against when she was informed that she had not been shortlisted, however not wanting to jump to conclusions, she had waited and her suspicions were only confirmed when she got the letter from the client company on 23rd August 2017.
Findings and Conclusions on Preliminary Argument
The Act is clear that a Complainant is only entitled to bring a claim in respect of contraventions of the Act as far back as six months prior to the lodging of the Workplace Relations claim unless there is reasonable cause justifying an extension to the time limit. With specific reference to this complaint under the Employment Equality Legislation, it is clear that the complaint was not received by the Workplace Relations Commission until 8th of October 2017. The last date that a relevant act of discrimination could have occurred within the meaning of the Act was therefore on 8th April 2017.
In her submission to the Commission, the Complainant submits the 23rd of August 2017 as the most recent date of discrimination. However, she had been informed by the Respondent on 9th March 2017 that she had been unsuccessful in her application and had not been shortlisted for interview for the post. She agreed at the hearing that she felt at that time that she had been discriminated against but waited seven months before submitting a complaint.
If any discrimination did take place, which is denied by the Respondent, it took place when the Complainant was not shortlisted for interview and it was from this moment that the six-month period began.
It does not make sense to allow extensions to the six-month limit because a complainant is unsure of their position or they are trying to verify a suspicion; I do not believe this qualifies as reasonable cause.
I do not believe the Complainant has demonstrated a reasonable cause justifying an extension to the time limit of six-months.
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
For the reasons set out above that I find that the Complainant’s claim is statute barred. I do not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
|
Dated: 17/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Out of time, reasonable cause |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011102
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Maura Layden | Cpl Recruitment Agency |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Job Applicant | A Recruitment Agency |
Representatives |
| IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00014850-001 | 08/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/01/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent, a recruitment agency, discriminated against her due to her age, by not forwarding her job application to a client organisation. The Respondent refutes this allegation and contends that the Complainant's application was forwarded to the relevant parties in the client organisation. The Respondent puts forward that it had no input into who was shortlisted for interview. The Complainant lodged a Complaint Form with the WRC on 8th October 2017.
|
Preliminary Argument – Time Limits:
Respondent’s Submissions
As a preliminary point the Respondent submits that the Complainant’s claim is outside the statutory time limits within which a claim can be brought, in accordance with Section 77 of the Act which states as follows:
(5) ( a ) Subject to paragraph (b) , a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.
( b ) On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.
( c ) This subsection does not apply in relation to a claim not to be receiving remuneration in accordance with an equal remuneration term.
The Respondent submits that the Complainant applied for a specific role on 5th February 2017. The Respondent acknowledged the Complainant's application and duly forwarded same to the appropriate contact person in the client organisation for consideration.
The client organisation reviewed all applications and took the decision not to shortlist the Complainant for interview. The Respondent informed the Complainant of this outcome by way of email on 9th March 2017. The Respondent contends that the alleged date of contravention, if any, could only be on or before 9th March 2017 thus the relevant period for raising a claim under the Act is from 9th March 2017 to 8th September 2017.
Although the Complainant completed a form ES 1 on 5th September the Respondent submits that this form is utilised to warn a respondent of a possible legal claim under the Equal Status Act and is not in itself a lodgement of a claim.
It is the Respondent's belief that the claim lodged by the Complainant on 8th October 2017 is one month outside the six-month time-period and as such the Adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.
Complainant's Submission
The Complainant submits that she was unsure that she had been discriminated against until she received a letter from the client organisation on 23rd August 2017, which in her view indicated that the Respondent had not sent her application through to the client organisation for consideration. Up to that point she had an idea that she had been discriminated against, but she could not be sure. However, when questioned at the hearing on this she stated that she had a sense in March she had been discriminated against when she was informed that she had not been shortlisted, however not wanting to jump to conclusions, she had waited and her suspicions were only confirmed when she got the letter from the client company on 23rd August 2017.
Findings and Conclusions on Preliminary Argument
The Act is clear that a Complainant is only entitled to bring a claim in respect of contraventions of the Act as far back as six months prior to the lodging of the Workplace Relations claim unless there is reasonable cause justifying an extension to the time limit. With specific reference to this complaint under the Employment Equality Legislation, it is clear that the complaint was not received by the Workplace Relations Commission until 8th of October 2017. The last date that a relevant act of discrimination could have occurred within the meaning of the Act was therefore on 8th April 2017.
In her submission to the Commission, the Complainant submits the 23rd of August 2017 as the most recent date of discrimination. However, she had been informed by the Respondent on 9th March 2017 that she had been unsuccessful in her application and had not been shortlisted for interview for the post. She agreed at the hearing that she felt at that time that she had been discriminated against but waited seven months before submitting a complaint.
If any discrimination did take place, which is denied by the Respondent, it took place when the Complainant was not shortlisted for interview and it was from this moment that the six-month period began.
It does not make sense to allow extensions to the six-month limit because a complainant is unsure of their position or they are trying to verify a suspicion; I do not believe this qualifies as reasonable cause.
I do not believe the Complainant has demonstrated a reasonable cause justifying an extension to the time limit of six-months.
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
For the reasons set out above that I find that the Complainant’s claim is statute barred. I do not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
|
Dated: 17/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Out of time, reasonable cause |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011102
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Maura Layden | Cpl Recruitment Agency |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Job Applicant | A Recruitment Agency |
Representatives |
| IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00014850-001 | 08/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/01/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent, a recruitment agency, discriminated against her due to her age, by not forwarding her job application to a client organisation. The Respondent refutes this allegation and contends that the Complainant's application was forwarded to the relevant parties in the client organisation. The Respondent puts forward that it had no input into who was shortlisted for interview. The Complainant lodged a Complaint Form with the WRC on 8th October 2017.
|
Preliminary Argument – Time Limits:
Respondent’s Submissions
As a preliminary point the Respondent submits that the Complainant’s claim is outside the statutory time limits within which a claim can be brought, in accordance with Section 77 of the Act which states as follows:
(5) ( a ) Subject to paragraph (b) , a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.
( b ) On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.
( c ) This subsection does not apply in relation to a claim not to be receiving remuneration in accordance with an equal remuneration term.
The Respondent submits that the Complainant applied for a specific role on 5th February 2017. The Respondent acknowledged the Complainant's application and duly forwarded same to the appropriate contact person in the client organisation for consideration.
The client organisation reviewed all applications and took the decision not to shortlist the Complainant for interview. The Respondent informed the Complainant of this outcome by way of email on 9th March 2017. The Respondent contends that the alleged date of contravention, if any, could only be on or before 9th March 2017 thus the relevant period for raising a claim under the Act is from 9th March 2017 to 8th September 2017.
Although the Complainant completed a form ES 1 on 5th September the Respondent submits that this form is utilised to warn a respondent of a possible legal claim under the Equal Status Act and is not in itself a lodgement of a claim.
It is the Respondent's belief that the claim lodged by the Complainant on 8th October 2017 is one month outside the six-month time-period and as such the Adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.
Complainant's Submission
The Complainant submits that she was unsure that she had been discriminated against until she received a letter from the client organisation on 23rd August 2017, which in her view indicated that the Respondent had not sent her application through to the client organisation for consideration. Up to that point she had an idea that she had been discriminated against, but she could not be sure. However, when questioned at the hearing on this she stated that she had a sense in March she had been discriminated against when she was informed that she had not been shortlisted, however not wanting to jump to conclusions, she had waited and her suspicions were only confirmed when she got the letter from the client company on 23rd August 2017.
Findings and Conclusions on Preliminary Argument
The Act is clear that a Complainant is only entitled to bring a claim in respect of contraventions of the Act as far back as six months prior to the lodging of the Workplace Relations claim unless there is reasonable cause justifying an extension to the time limit. With specific reference to this complaint under the Employment Equality Legislation, it is clear that the complaint was not received by the Workplace Relations Commission until 8th of October 2017. The last date that a relevant act of discrimination could have occurred within the meaning of the Act was therefore on 8th April 2017.
In her submission to the Commission, the Complainant submits the 23rd of August 2017 as the most recent date of discrimination. However, she had been informed by the Respondent on 9th March 2017 that she had been unsuccessful in her application and had not been shortlisted for interview for the post. She agreed at the hearing that she felt at that time that she had been discriminated against but waited seven months before submitting a complaint.
If any discrimination did take place, which is denied by the Respondent, it took place when the Complainant was not shortlisted for interview and it was from this moment that the six-month period began.
It does not make sense to allow extensions to the six-month limit because a complainant is unsure of their position or they are trying to verify a suspicion; I do not believe this qualifies as reasonable cause.
I do not believe the Complainant has demonstrated a reasonable cause justifying an extension to the time limit of six-months.
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
For the reasons set out above that I find that the Complainant’s claim is statute barred. I do not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
|
Dated: 17/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Out of time, reasonable cause |