ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006175
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Civil Servant | A Government Department |
Representatives | Mairead Keating, David Hearty BL | - |
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-00008467-001 | 29/11/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/10/2017, 14/3/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
A preliminary point was raised by the Respondent in regard to limits under section 77(5)(a) of the above Act. It was submitted that the Claimant was informed of the result of the 2015 competition by letter dated 4 January 2016. It is the Respondent’s position that the requisite elements of action occurred when the panel was formed. Thus if any incident of discrimination occurred in relation to the 2015 competition, which is denied, it would have occurred on 18 December 2015 when the panel was formed. It is the submission of the Respondent that for the complaint to be within time, the last date the WRC could have received his claim was 17 June 2016. The date of knowledge is irrelevant. The WRC received the complaint on 29 November 2016. This is almost five and a half months after the relevant date. The Respondent is also relying on the Labour Court interpretation of reasonable cause in the Cementation Stanska v Carroll case |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Claimant stated he is seeking an extension of time as he was fearful of the consequences of any action he might take. He also stated that as a civil servant he understood that the Labour Court was not available to him when he became aware that it was he lodged his complaint. |
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.
I have considered the position of both parties in regard to time limits. The Claimant was invited to make a further submission for an extension which did not do until seven months after this invitation. There are no new material facts in the submission. The Claimant cites that he did not know that the Labour Court was available to him. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The Claimant also claimed that he was ‘fearful’ yet he did refer to cases, incidents or events that occurred that would support this contention. In any event he would be protected in law from any repercussions. I do not accept that there is reasonable cause in this case. Therefore the complaint is out of time. As a result I have no jurisdiction in the case. |
Dated: 16.2.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney