ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021717
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Chef | Hotel |
Representatives |
| Audrey Carney The HR Company, Ian McGuinness |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00028318-001 | ||
CA-00028318-002 | ||
CA-00028318-003 | ||
CA-00028318-005 | ||
CA-00028318-006 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant was employed from 16th April 2018 to 8th or 11th November 2018.He was paid €15.89 per hour. He has claimed that he was not properly compensated for annual leave and Sunday working. Also he was not paid the correct wages and he did not receive the correct rest breaks. |
Preliminary Point - Time Limit
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that his date of cessation was 11th November 2018. He accepts that he wrote a letter of resignation which stated that 8th November was his last day at work. However, 9th November was a day in lieu and 10th and 11th November were his days off. The week ran from Monday to Sunday therefore his employment ended on Sunday 11th November 2018. He also showed that his P45 stated the cessation date as 11th November 2018. He sought an extension to the time limit. He stated that he went to a new job and was working in effect seven days a week. This led up to Christmas and again it was very busy. He was hospitalised for a short period due to a leg injury. He didn’t have time to prepare the claim earlier. He was aware of the time limit but thought it was 12 months, not six. He spent a lot of time working through the payslips to ascertain his exact claim. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that the Complainant resigned his position by giving one week’s notice to end on 8th November 2018. He finished work on 8th. They rejected that he was on a day in lieu on Friday 9th November. They pointed out that he had used the facilities of the WRC in the past and so was familiar with time limits. There was no detail on the claim form so he could have presented the claim much earlier, well within the six months’ time limit. They objected to any extension to the time limit. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Date employment ended I note the positions of both parties. I find that the Complainant gave his resignation in writing with 8th November being his last day at work. I accept the Respondent’s position that the office staff completed the P45 and used the last day of the working week, 11th November as the cessation date. Therefore, on the balance of probability I find that the cessation date was as per his letter of resignation, 8th November 2018. Extension of the time limit. The Labour Court in the Cementation Skanska V Carroll DWT0342 stated, “ in considering if reasonable cause exists it is for the complainantto show that there are reasons which both explains the delay and afford an excuse for the delay…In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard but it must be applied to the facts and the circumstances known to the complainant at the material time” ” explains the delay and affords an excuse for the delay” I note that the Complainant advised that due to work pressures and a hospitalisation, he was unable to prepare the claim earlier. He stated that he had to work through payslips to try to establish the basis for the claim. I find that when he presented his claim to the WRC on 10th May 2019, he provided no detail for any of the claims. Therefore, I find that he could have prepared the claim as presented to the WRC in a very short period of time. I find that he stated that he was aware of time limits. I note that the Respondent stated that he has used the services of the WRC in the past and so would be aware of time limits, this was not denied by the Complainant. I have decided that the Complainant has not shown reasons to explain the delay and provide an excuse for it. I have decided not to grant an extension to the time limit. I find that as the claim was presented to the Commission on 10th May 2019, the period that may be investigated is 11th November 2018 to 10th May 2019. I find that the employment had ended on 8th November 2018 and so the claim was not presented within the six-month time limit. Therefore, I find that the claim is out of time. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the above stated reasons, I have decided not to grant the extension to the time limit and so the claim is out of time.
I have decided that I do not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.
Dated: August 16th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Time limit |