Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Neil Farrelly

Department Of Justice And Equality Embassy Of Ireland, Turkey

Representatives

MP Guinness B.L. instructed by Chief State Solicitor's Office

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00022451-001

05/10/2018

The complainant had been employed on a fixed term contract by the respondent in one of its offices abroad.

On conclusion of the contract term his contract was not renewed on the basis that the respondent had a policy of not employing family members of existing staff. The complainant’s spouse was also employed by the respondent on a permanent basis.

While he accepted this at the time he became aware subsequently that a person who was employed to replace him was a family member of another employee.

He submits that this is discrimination on the basis of family status/civil status.

The respondent raises two preliminary points; the first regarding time limits.

The complainant stated on the complaint form that the last date of discrimination was April 1st 2018, which left him until September 30th to lodge his complaint.

In fact, it was not submitted until October 5th and it is therefore out of time.

The onus falls on the complainant to meet the legal test for any extension of time viz, that the complainant must identify the reason for the delay and establish that the reason provides a justifiable excuse for the delay.

Secondly, the complainant’s contracts of employment specified that the applicable law in respect of any disputes arising from the contract of employment was that of the jurisdiction in which he had been employed.

Therefore, in line with previous decisions of the Adjudication Service (ADJ 00015399) his remedy lies only in that foreign jurisdiction and not in Ireland.

The respondent made submissions on the substance of the complaint and confirmed that the policy in relation to family members applies generally and without discrimination.

It was only departed from in exceptional circumstances but has now been further formalised in a new policy with effect from December 2018. The person subsequently employed and identified by the complainant as a family member was an exception justified by his vernacular language skills.

The complainant was not professionally represented at the hearing but was facilitated with a short adjournment to provide him with an opportunity to consider the points raised above related tp jurisdiction.

In relation to the time limits, he had identified April 1st as the date of the discrimination as that was the date of the email communicating the policy in relation to non-employment of family members.

While he might easily have chosen a later date as his employment did not terminate until the end of June this would not have been sufficient for him to successfully navigate the second obstacle; that of the country of jurisdiction for the purposes of his contract of employment.

The contract is very clear in this regard and I therefore find on that basis that I have no jurisdiction to consider the complaint and it must be dismissed.

For the reasons set out above I have no jurisdiction to consider complaint CA-00022451-001 and it is dismissed.

Contract of employment, foreign jurisdiction, time limits.