ADJ-00009023

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009023

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/11/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and 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:

PRELIMINARY ISSUES. TIME LIMIT

Section 8(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015 provides as follows – “A claim for redress under this Act shall be initiated by giving notice in writing….to the Director General – (a) within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal, or (b) within such period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the relevant dismissal as the adjudication officer considers appropriate, in circumstances where the adjudication officer is satisfied that the giving of the notice within the period referred to in paragraph (a) was prevented due to reasonable cause”.

By letter dated 7^th June 2017 to the Workplace Relations Commission the Complainant sought an extension of time due to reasonable cause. The Complainant argued that he was effectively dismissed in July 2016 when he was removed from the Roster for the Tour Company but this fact was not communicated to him until September 2016 by the Coach Company, his direct employer. He then sought information from the Data Protection Commissioner under the Data Protection Act, 2004 and this information was provided to him in March 2017. He also stated he was unaware of the time limit involved. This complaint was lodged with the WRC on 30^th May 2017. There was no explanation from the Complainant as to the reasons he delayed submitting his complaint between March 2017 and 30^th May 2017. I refer to the decision of Justice Laffoy in Minister for Finance v Civil and Public Service Union (2007) in which she held that ignorance of one’s legal rights would not provide a justifiable excuse for a failure to bring a claim in time. The issue of Time Limits was also considered by the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT 38/2003 in which the Court held the burden of proof was on the Complainant to show that he was prevented from lodging the complaint on time and the Court also held that the length of the delay had also to be taken into account. On the basis of the evidence presented to me at the Hearing I decide not to give an extension of time.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE – CORRECT RESPONDENT.

The Complainant was employed by a Coach Company and he was then assigned to work with a Tour Company. The Complainant withdrew his complaint against the Coach Company whom he acknowledges was his direct Employer and wished his complaint to be heard against the Coach Company. Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015 defines an “Employer” as “in relation to an employee, means the person by whom the employee is employed under a Contract of Employment”. By the Complainant’s own evidence he was never employed by the Tour Company.

Decision

Dated:   15^th March 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words: