Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Hostel Night Manager

Hostel Operation

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00019085-001

11/05/2018

The Complainant was employed as a Hostel Night Manager from 9th June 2017 to 11th July 2017. He was paid €350 per week. He has claimed that he did not receive proper wages.

Time Limit for presentation of claims

Sec 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act states, “Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint 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.

Sec 41 (8) 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.

The claim was presented to the Commission on 10th May 2018. As per Sec 41(6) above the period that may be investigated is 11th November 2017 to 10th May 2018 (6 months) unless an extension to the time limit is granted, (an additional 6 months) which would then allow an investigation into the period 11th May 2017 to 11th July 2017, the date the employment ended.

The Complainant requested an extension to the time limit. He stated that after he left the employment due to his belief that he was under paid and over worked he stayed in Dublin for a period of three weeks. He subsequently went to live in France and the arrangement that he had hoped would fall into place did not happen. He became destitute, with no accommodation, no job, no income and he had to depend on the goodness of the local police and local people. Eventually he was able to get home to Australia due to the generosity of some people there. He was unwell for a period of time after he arrived home and it was only when he had recovered sufficiently that he began to research an online referral of a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Respondent objected to the request for an extension to the time limit but left it for the Adjudication Officer to make the decision.

The Labour Court in the Cementation Skanska V Carroll DWT0342 case in dealing with a request to extend the time limit for reasonable cause   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”.

I find that the Complainant has set of a sequence of events that he encountered after he left the employment with the Respondent.

I find that he has produced no evidence to support these assertions. There was no evidence of living in Dublin for three weeks after the employment ended. There was no evidence of travelling to France, becoming destitute in France or eventually returning home to Australia. There was no medical evidence of his alleged illness when he arrived in Australia.

I note that a potential problem with time limits was signalled to the Complainant by the administrative staff after he had made the application.

In view of the fact that the Complainant has failed to provide any evidence to support his assertions I find that he has not established reasonable cause to extend the time limit.

Therefore. I find that the period that may be investigated is 11th November 2017 to 10th May 2018, the Complainant had already ended the employment by 11th July 2017, some four months earlier.

I find that the complaint was not presented to the Commission within six months of the date of the alleged contraventions. Therefore, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to deal with this case.

I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have decided not to grant the extension to the time limit as reasonable cause was not established.

I have decided that the complaint was presented outside the time limit allowed in Sec 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

This complaint is not well founded.

Therefore, I have decided that I do not have jurisdiction to deal with this case

Dated:     2nd December 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Key Words: