ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025245
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Operative | A Security/CIT Company. |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Anne O'Connell , Solicitor of Anne O'Connell Solicitors |
Complaint:
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-00032036-001 | 06/11/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following the referral of the complaint / dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint / dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint / dispute.
Background:
The issue in contention concerns the alleged Unfair Dismissal of an Operative by a Security/ Cash in Transit Company |
1: Preliminary Issue / Time limits
1:1 Respondent Position / Opening Issue
The complaint was lodged with the WRC on the 6th of November 2019. The date of alleged Dismissal was given as the 29th of January 2019.
The date of lodgement of the complaint is clearly outside of the six months’ time limit in the Unfair Dismissals Act and as such the claim cannot proceed.
For an Adjudicator to grant a further six months extension for the lodgement of the complaint this has to be based on very sound reasoning and exceptional causes.
It is common cause that the Complainant returned to full time employment with another Employer on the 28th March 2019. There are simply no exceptional or extenuating circumstances that could have prevented the Complainant from lodging his UD Act complaint within the initial six months and furthermore there are no grounds to grant a further six-month extension.
The complaint must be dismissed on time limit grounds.
In Oral evidence the issue of a data access request from the Complainant was raised. This can have no logical bearing on the requirement to lodge a complaint within the time limits.
1:2 Complainnat Position / Opening Issue.
The Complainant, in oral evidence, conceded that he had been having a Personal addiction issue that required him to attend an intensive treatment /counselling programme. It was accepted that his employment with the Respondent had been interrupted as a result of his Addiction issues in previous years. His current re-employment had begun again on the 5th September 2017.
For the early part of 2019 he had been struggling with his Addiction and was attending AA.
He had sought advice from the Citizens Advice Service and they had suggested a Data Access request. As this was not answered promptly by the Respondent he had been unable to make his Complaint in time.
1:3 Adjudicator Decision.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act ,1977 as amended, provides at Sub Section 2
(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.
Having considered all the evidence presented it was clear to me that the Complainant, while attending the AA programme, was clearly capable of attending to his ordinary life issues. He referred to, for example car issues he had been having but the telling factor was that he had been able to successfully secure a substantial alternative employment position.
In addition, he had been in early communication with the Citizens Advice Service and had received their advice.
The issue of the alleged tardy reply by the Respondent to his Data Access request as being the “Reasonable Cause” for seeking a further six-month extension I could not accept.
In Minister for Finance v Civil and Public Service Union [2007] ELR 36 quoted by Ryan in Redmond on Dismissal Law, 3rd Edition, Bloomsbury 2017 at Section 25.29 Mr. Justice Laffoy is quoted as stating that
“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 statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time.”
Having heard the Oral evidence from the Complainant at the Oral Hearing I could not see any “Reasonable cause” to allow the granting of an extension of a further six months. The Complainant was, in the light of the evidence, well capable of lodging a WRC complaint throughout the time periods in question. He had consulted the Citizens Advice Service.
Accordingly, I have decided not to allow an extension of the time limits as per Section 8 (2) (b) of the Act and deem the Complaint (CA--00032036-001) to be out of time.
2: Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Having considered the Time limits issue in the Opening Points I deemed the Complaint to be Out of Time and is according set aside as legally Not Well Founded.
Dated: June 8th 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
|