FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 PARTIES : FLAIR SALON SERVICES LTD (REPRESENTED BY MC MAHON & COMPANY, SOLICITORS ) - AND - BARRY KELLY DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No:ADJ-00015852 CA-00018409
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officerto the Labour Court on 21 December 2018 in accordance with Section 8(A) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 January 2020. The following is the Determination of the Court:-
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Barry Kelly (the Appellant) against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer given under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – 2015 (the Acts) in his claim of unfair dismissal made against his former employer Flair Salon Services Limited (the Respondent).
The Appellant’s employment terminated on 5thOctober 2017 and he referred his complaint under the Acts to the Workplace Relations Commission on 5thApril 2018. The claim was out of time and an application was made for an extension of time. The Adjudication Officer decided that no reasonable cause had been shown by the Appellant for the delay in making his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission and the complaint failed.
The Adjudication Officer’s Decision issued on 7thNovember 2018. The within appeal was received by the Court on 21stDecember 2018.
Preliminary Issue - Time Limits.
The Respondent raised as a preliminary issue the fact that the Appellant’s Appeal was referred to the Labour Court outside the statutory time limit of 42 days provided in the Act.
The Appellant, who was unrepresented, contended that his appeal was made in time.
In the interest of efficiency of process, and in view of the fact that this matter had the potential to be determinative of the appeal in its entirety, the Court set out at its hearing that it would determine the matter of time limits for the making of the within appeal as a preliminary matter and only thereafter would the Court, if required, proceed to hear the substantive matter. Neither party raised any objection to this approach.
Relevant Law
The Workplace Relations Act at Section 44(3) and 44(4) provides as follows
- 44 (3) Subject to subsection (4), a notice under subsection (2) shall be given to the Labour Court not later than 42 days from the date of the decision concerned.
- (4) The Labour Court may direct that a notice under subsection (2) may be given to it after the expiration of the period specified in subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the notice was not so given before such expiration due to the existence of exceptional circumstances.
The Respondent submitted that the within appeal had been made 45 days after the date of the decision of the Adjudication Officer. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had made no submission to the effect that the delay in making the appeal was due to the existence of exceptional circumstances and consequently the Labour Court had no basis under the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 at Section 44(4) to extend the time for the making of the within appeal.
Summary of the Appellant’s Case on the Preliminary Issue
The Appellant had made no written submission addressing the preliminary matter. The Appellant was unrepresented and the Court took time to ensure that he understood the legislative provisions giving rise to the preliminary issue of time limits. The Appellant confirmed his understanding of the matter and indicated that he wished to make an oral submission on the preliminary issue.
The Court then adjourned for a period to allow the Appellant time to prepare an oral submission setting out his position as regards the matter.
The Appellant submitted that he had made his appeal in time and set out a narrative of undated interactions he had had with staff of the Labour Court.
Conclusions of the Court
The Court has given careful consideration to the submission of the parties. In addition, having orally shared the content of the Court’s file on the matter with the parties at its hearing, the Court concludes as follows:
•The within appeal was received by the Court on 21stDecember 2018.•On 3rdJanuary 2019 the Court wrote to the Appellant advising him that his appeal form was incomplete and inviting him to supply certain details.
•The Appellant responded on 9thJanuary 2019 confirming certain details and also confirming that his appeal had accompanied a letter sent by him to the Court dated 17thDecember 2018.
•The Court wrote to the Respondent and the Appellant on 23rdJanuary 2019 confirming the existence of the appeal.
The Court also notes that its file contains an envelope processed by the Portlaoise Mail Centre of An Post on 20thDecember 2018. The Court concludes that this envelope had originally contained the Appellant’s letter of 17thDecember and the accompanying appeal form.
The within appeal, were it to have been made in time, required to be given to the Court no later than 18thDecember 2018. The appeal was given to the Court on 21stDecember 2018.
In all of the circumstances and having regard in particular to the fact that the Appellant has made no submission that the delay in making his appeal was due to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the Court cannot find that time should be extended for the making of the within appeal.
Determination
For all the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Appeal to the Court is statute-barred and therefore must fail.
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
MK______________________
24 January 2020Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.