Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An aircraft maintenance engineer

An Employer

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00011974-001

18/06/2017

The Circuit Court reinstated the complainant to the respondent on the 22nd April 2013 following an earlier transfer of undertaking and dismissal. The respondent then made the complainant redundant in July 2013. This complaint of unfair dismissal relates to the July 2013 dismissal. The complainant submitted a statement of terms provided by the respondent on the 9th October 2007, which he signed and dated on the day of the adjudication.

In the complaint form, the complainant indicates that his employment commenced on the 22nd December 2007 and ended on the 3rd July 2013. The complainant confirmed that he was paid by the respondent up to July 2013. He stated that the earlier reinstatement was not a genuine reinstatement as he was not issued a new contract of employment. This was confirmed to be the case in the respondent’s letter of December 2016. There was a period of six weeks in May 2013 when he was notionally reinstated and subject to a redundancy process. This took the form of two meetings in a hotel with the company secretary. The complainant said that he told the company secretary at their meeting that the whole thing was a sham and he would be raising it with state bodies.

The complainant outlined that the ending of his employment in July 2013 was unfair. The December 2016 letter showed that the respondent had no genuine intention to reinstate him and it was a sham. The complainant outlined that since 2013 he had worked on and off through agencies in aviation roles. He said that he received a redundancy payment electronically and he acknowledged receipt. The complainant outlined that in 2013, he did not sign for the redundancy form and did not accept an additional ex gratia payment. He acted within six months of the respondent’s letter of the 19th December 2016. This discloses the misrepresentation and confirmed what had occurred in 2013.  

The respondent outlined that the complainant was reinstated in 2013 following his dismissal in 2009. He received four or five years of back-pay and was reinstated into a company with no other remaining employees. The company in Ireland was winding down. A redundancy process was in place and the complainant was made redundant and received his full entitlements.

The respondent submitted that this claim is out of time. The complainant has referred to events between 2009 and 2013 and the latest date being the 3rd July 2013. The respondent submitted that this complaint must relate to the job he was made redundant from and must have been brought within a year.

The respondent submitted that there was no effect in the complainant signing the contract on the day of the adjudication. He had previously worked under this contract and accepted it. It further stated that the letter of December 2016 changed nothing.

This is a complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act. Section 8(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides that a complaint must be referred with six months of the date of dismissal, extendable with reasonable cause to 12 months.

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides the following definition of ‘date of dismissal’:

“date of dismissal” means—

(a) where prior notice of the termination of the contract of employment is given and it complies with the provisions of that contract and of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, the date on which that notice expires.

(b) where either prior notice of such termination is not given or the notice given does not comply with the provisions of the contract of employment or the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, the date on which such a notice would have expired, if it had been given on the date of such termination and had been expressed to expire on the later of the following dates—

(i) the earliest date that would be in compliance with the provisions of the contract of employment,

(ii) the earliest date that would be in compliance with the provisions of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973

(c) where a contract of employment for a fixed term expires without its being renewed under the same contract or, in the case of a contract for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited, but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), there is a cesser of the purpose, the date of the expiry or cesser”

Given that the date of dismissal is the 3rd July 2013, the complaint was not made within the limitation period provided by the Unfair Dismissals Act. The correspondence issued after the date of dismissal does not create a fresh contravention justiciable before the Workplace Relations Commission. While section 14 of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides notification requirements following a dismissal, any contravention cannot be subject to an award of redress pursuant to section 7.

CA-00011974-001

For the reasons set out in the above decision, the complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded.

Unfair Dismissals Act / limitation period

Section 14 / no redress permissible pursuant to section 7