Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Retained Firefighter

A Local Authority

Representatives

In person

LGMA

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00004871-001

26/05/2016

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Retained Firefighter from 24th November 2003 until his resignation (notified to the respondent on 16th April 2015) from his employment as a Retained Firefighter with effect from 28th May 2015. The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 26th May 2016 and relates to alleged Unfair (Constructive) Dismissal. The complainant sought an extension of time in relation to his complaint on the basis that the delay in submitting his complaint occurred because of the death of his Solicitor and the subsequent death of his Solicitors replacement.

The complainant’s last day of work as a Retained Firefighter was on 28th May 2015. The complaint was submitted to the WRC just two days short of one year later on 26th May 2016. The respondent did not object to the complainant’s request to extend time in relation to his complaint.

Time Limits

Section 8(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977-2015 states as follows:

(2) A claim for redress under this Act shall be initiated by giving a notice in writing (containing such particulars (if any) as may be specified in regulations under subsection (17) of section 41 of the Act of 2015) to the Director General —

(a) within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal, or

(b) within such period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the relevant dismissal as the adjudication officer considers appropriate, in circumstances where the adjudication officer is satisfied that the giving of the notice within the period referred to in paragraph (a) was prevented due to reasonable cause,

Reasonable cause

The test for establishing if reasonable cause is shown for the purpose of granting an extension of time is that formulated in Labour Court Determination No: DWT0338 –Cementation Skanska and Carroll which states as follows: -

“It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. 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 circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.

The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only a slight explanation whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons. Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case”.

Decision

Having taken into account all of the information provided at the adjudication hearing, I find that the reasons put forward by the complainant for the delay in submitting his complaint explain the delay but do not, in my view, offer a valid reason for the length of the delay. The complaint was submitted just two days short of one year after the complainant’s last day of work as a Retained Firefighter. Nothwithstanding the tragic and unfortunate circumstances experienced by the complainant’s Solicitors, the complainant could have submitted his complaint on line or in writing at any time or seek clarification from his firm of Solicitors as to what the status of his complaints were at any time. In all of the circumstances of this complaint, I find that the circumstances of the referral of this complaint do not satisfy the test as set out in Labour Court Determination No: DWT0338. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is out of time.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the complaint submitted is out of time and is therefore statute barred.

Complaint out of time.