Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A retained firefighter

A Local Authority

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00019420-001

25/05/2018

The Complainant was employed as a retained firefighter by the Respondent Local Authority in 2012 and was stationed at Fire Station D. A retained fire fighter is a fire fighter who does not work full-time but is paid to spend long periods of time on call to respond to emergencies when required. They also attend for training on a regular basis. Outside his employment with the Respondent the Complainant is a part-time farmer and estate manager.

As a retained firefighter the Complainant carries an alerter and would have to respond when alerted of an emergency.

In or about 2014 the Complainant and his fellow retained fire fighter colleagues found the attitude of the Station Officer to be threatening, demeaning and intimidating.

Following the intervention of the Complainant’s trade union, for which the Complainant was Shop Steward a promise was issued that the situation would be dealt with.

A HR Consultant was appointed by the Respondent to carry out an investigation in Fire Station D. The first meeting took place with all firefighters on 18th September 2015.

A list of matters agreed were included in a report from the HR Consultant and generally things improved for a period.

A complaint was received in the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 25/05/2018. This complaint is under section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

The specifics of the complaint carrying the WRC reference CA – 00019420 – 001 reads as follows:

“I am unable to return to work because it is unsafe for me to do so. The main problem is the attitude and lack of leadership ability of Station Officer xxxxxxx (name redacted). As a result of a complaint by a number of fire-crew a mediator was appointed. An agreement was reached but Station Officer xxxxxxx (name redacted) has breached that agreement. I raised concerns and my employers have ignored me”.

Preliminary Matter – raised by Respondent.

With regard to time limits for submitting a claim under the Act, Section 28 of the Act provides as follows:

28 (4) A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section unless it is presented to him or her within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates or such further period not exceeding 6 months as the rights commissioner considers reasonable.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 reads as follows:

Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a dispute referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Based on the date of the submission of the complaint to the WRC this is the six-month period from 25th November 2017 until 25th May 2018. As the Complainant has been absent from work since 26th September 2017 to date, it is difficult to establish what if any penalisation could have occurred in this period. Therefore, it is the position of the Respondent that the claim is out of time.

Response to Preliminary Matter.

The argument presented by the Respondent is a valid one. The complaint was not submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission within the period of 6 months.

Section 46 (8) of the Workplace Relations Act states:

An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

I have considered this time limit issue in depth. The Complainant, as stated by his representative, was the Shop Steward for his trade union in Fire Station D and was legally represented at hearing by a solicitor, he should have known or been advised that time limits existed.

I do not accept that reasonable cause has been shown. The complaint was submitted outside the six-month time limit, I therefore do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Complaint submitted outside the permitted 6-month time limit.

The complaint was submitted outside the permitted six-month time limit.

As the complaint was submitted outside the six-month time limit and no reasonable cause was shown to extend this time limit I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. It therefore has to fail under Section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

Complaint fails.