Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Bar Man

A Pub Business

Representatives

Virgil Horgan Hegarty & Horgan Solicitors

Denis Cusack, Human Resource Consultant

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-00032492-001

26/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00032492-002

26/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00032492-003

26/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00032492-004

26/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00032492-005

26/11/2019

On 26 November 2019, five complaints were lodged on behalf of a former employee of a Pub Business. The complainant had commenced employment in April 2017.

The Complaints centred on a claim for unfair dismissal, terms of employment, penalisation under Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, public holidays and breaks.

The claims were rejected by the Respondent who raised a Preliminary Issue on time limits. By way of counter argument, the Complainant made an application for an extension of time.

Both parties were represented. The Complainant by his Solicitor and the Respondent by their Human Resource Practitioner. Both parties attended with witnesses and made oral and written submissions.

On 26 November 2019, the complainant submitted five complaints detailed below to the WRC. The claims referred to a period of employment as a Bar Man from 15 April 2017 to 4 February 2019. The complainant submitted that he worked on average 17 hours per week during the academic year and additional hours in the summer months. His nett pay was €10.00 per hour.

Preliminary Issue on Time Limits

In response to the respondent tabled argument on the application of statutory time limits, the complainant’s representative made an oral and written submission in seeking that the time limit be extended to twelve months in accordance with section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 i.e. 27 November 2018.

In Spring 2019, the complainant, a University Student was preparing for his summer exams and was preoccupied with these preparations over the months of February, March and April 2019. Proceeding with a submission to the WRC at that time would have been detrimental to his studies and could have compromised the completeness of the WRC complaint.

In addition, his presence was required to support his mother through several serious medical conditions. The complainant submitted documentation on this medical journey.

He argued that the respondent was not prejudiced by the delay as he had placed his former employer on notice as early as 8 February 2019 that he intended to proceed with a claim for unfair dismissal.

CA-00032492-001   Claim for Unfair Dismissal

The complainant submitted that he had been unfairly dismissed on 1 February 2019. The complainant had sought external advice on Public Holiday entitlement from his Solicitor. He had obtained a statement from his Solicitor on the provisions of section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and intended to exhibit it directly to his employer.

On 1 February 2019, he called to his workplace and asked to see the business owner. The respondent was engaged in drinking at the bar. The complainant sought unpaid public holiday pay and was rebuked by the respondent in a 15-minute encounter where bad language was directed at him.

He gave evidence that he was told to “Fxxxx off and find another job if you want holiday pay “and was subsequently deleted from the roster. He concluded that his job had gone by this action. The complainant submitted some electronic communications which supported his being replaced.

On 8 February 2019, he wrote to the respondent and informed him that he would be advancing a case for unfair dismissal.

He confirmed that he received the respondent response of 11 February 2019 which requested him to declare his position regarding his employment. He looked at it briefly. After this, he commenced looking for new work and was bound by his caring and study commitments.

The complainant submitted that there were no substantial grounds justifying his dismissal. He had merely gone to his workplace to discuss an unresolved issue with his employer and was traumatised as a result. He asked for a remedy in compensation to cover his three months loss of earnings.

The complainant submitted a statement of earnings for 2019 post hearing. His representative submitted that the post-Christmas lull has resulted in a reduction in earnings before he found new work in April 2019.

During cross examination, the complainant confirmed the identity of the line manager. The complainant clarified that he had linked with another Bar Man as he had worked the same hours. He was certain that his job was gone.

He had not been provided with a copy of his contract of employment.

He was unaware that public holidays had been calculated as a composite rate of payment.

Evidence of Mr A. Bar Tender

Mr A had previously worked at the respondent business.

Mr A confirmed that he had spoken with the complainant on the telephone soon after he left the work premises on 1 February. He couldn’t believe that his employment was terminated, and the complainant was very upset.

Mr A confirmed that an issue had arisen amongst the staff on public holiday and staff were apprehensive about advancing the issue before the complainant went up and asked.

During cross examination, Mr A did not recall receiving a contract. He did recollect whether a collective claim for public holiday pay had been raised with the respondent. He was not aware of any change in how public holidays were administered.

The complainant gave evidence of loss and mitigation, stressing that he had been without work for three months outside some sporadic work placements.

Evidence of Complainants Mother, Ms A

Ms A recalled that the complainant had arrived back from the meeting with his former employer in a shocked condition. He told her that he had been cursed and shouted at by the respondent in response to a request for holiday pay. His demeanour was generally gentle, and he cried that day. He told her that he had been fired and that the business owner had thrown the letter on public holidays on the floor in the context of the conversation.

Ms A had experience of workplace entitlements and handling of grievances and advised her son to contact the family solicitor.

CA-00032492-002 Terms of Employment

The Complainant commenced work in April 2017. The Respondent issued the complainant with his terms and conditions of employment on 1 august 2017. This constitutes a breach of section 3 of the Act. The Respondent has attributed this to an administrative error.

The complainant seeks compensation.

CA-00032492-003 Penalisation in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainants representatives submitted that the complainant was a Part Time Worker and as such was an identifiable beneficiary to the provisions of section 21 of the Act.

He did not receive these provisions and secured a letter from his Solicitor which set out these provisions. The respondent denied him these provisions and determined that the complainant’s terms and conditions did not cater for holiday pay. He had no knowledge of a composite rate.

The Complainant gave evidence that he was dismissed following his request for public holiday pay and arbitrarily replaced. His name was scratched off the roster and he was informed by a colleague that some one else had been asked to cover his hours.

The complainant sought compensation for the detriment he experienced.

CA-00032492-004 Public Holidays

The complainant submitted that he was denied payment for public holidays. He had secured a document from his Solicitor which outlined the provisions for public holidays under section 21 of the Act. He had met with the Respondent to seek to actualise these provisions in his employment. He had no awareness of the respondent reference to his pay being a composite rate inclusive of all public holidays.

CA-00032492-005 Breaks

The complainant submitted that he was often required to work 10-13 hour shifts without any break. This omission acted as a significant contravention of section 12 of the Act.

The complainant detailed the range of shifts where he had been denied break time.

In closing, the respondent representative reaffirmed the request for an extension of time and emphasised the ambiguity surrounding the methodology of pay arrangements, which were clearly not normal. The complainant had not been treated in a fair manner when he was simply seeking to resolve this matter with his employer.

The respondent operates an award-winning food and beverage business. The Complainant was employed as a Catering Assistant rather than his submitted Bar Man. He was employed on a casual basis on a zero hours contract signed on August 1, 2017. The respondent refuted all claims.

The respondent operated a nett pay policy where a composite rate inclusive of statutory leave and public holidays was conflated into this rate to arrive at €10.00 nett per hour in the complainant’s case.

Preliminary Issue on Time Limits

The Respondent representative argued by lodging the claims on 26 November 2019, all claims were submitted outside the cognisable period allowed and should be dismissed.

The respondent disputed the complainants submitted reasons for the delay in submission and opposed any plea for an extension of statutory time limits.

He argued that the complainant had sought legal advice in relation to holiday pay prior to his engagement with the respondent on February 1, 2019. It was therefore open to him to secure further legal advice on the time lines surroundings complaints to the WRC. The respondent wrote to the complainant seeking to clarify the employment relationship on February 11, 2019 and did not receive any correspondence until 12 November 2019.

CA-00032492-001   Claim for Unfair Dismissal

The respondent disputed that the complainant had been dismissed. The representative submitted that he had left his position voluntarily by taking the action of requesting a P45 on 11 February 2019.

The Respondent accepted that the complainant called to the work premises in early February 2019. some dispute arose regrading whether it was February 1 or February 4. The Respondent told the hearing that he had been door stepped and confronted with the complainants demands around public holidays and he had tried to explain the nuances of how the composite rate operated. The respondent accepted that an argument ensued between them and the matter of the public holidays was not resolved. The respondent disputed that the meeting lasted 15 minutes

The respondent exhibited 3 rosters

Week commencing 9 January Complainant was on annual leave

Week commencing 6 February Complainant was inserted on the roster, but a line drawn through bar an insertion of 11 am start on Sunday, 10 February. No attendance.

Week commencing 13 February   Line drawn through the complainant’s roster and two rostered days scheduled, no attendance

The respondent had a nominated line manger over the premises and the complainant did not contact her at any time. The line Manager dealt with rosters the respondent denied that the complainants name had been erased from the roster

The complainant had been an excellent worker and he had no plans to dismiss him. The complainant failed to attend for his rostered shift

CA-00032492-002 Terms of Employment

The respondent argued that the claim was out of time.

The Respondent confirmed that the complainant received his contract of employment in august 2017. He exhibited a copy of the contract and submitted that mitigating circumstances had prevailed at the time where the business owner had health issues from which administrative delay flowed.

The Respondent submitted that the delay was an oversight.

CA-00032492-003 Penalisation in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The respondent argued that the claim was out of time and denied penalisation. He contended that the complainant had left his position voluntarily and did not respond to an invitation to engage on his job.

The Respondent argued there was an overlap in the facts of the complaint lodged under Unfair Dismissals Legislation and that of the Organisation of Working Time

CA-00032492-004 Public Holidays

The respondent argued that the claim was out of time and denied any contravention of section 21 of the Act. The respondent outlined that the complainants pay was subject to an 40.00% loading which took account of Sunday pay, annual leave and public holidays via payment of a composite rate.

He emphasised the contractual term signed by the complainant on August 1, 2017

“… You will be offered a minimum of 0 hours per week, you may be asked to work on Sundays. Your net hourly rate includes Sunday work, therefore is inclusive and includes bank holidays. “

Annual Leave was cited as 1.67 days per month of service.

The respondent denied any breach of the act and in an earlier written submission dated 15 January 2020 submitted that the High court had held that it was enough for an employer to provide and express term in the contract of employment that Sunday working could be reflected in a composite rate.

He clarified that this system had since been revised at the respondent employment as Revenue rules had changed and public holidays are now delineated for payment purposes.

CA-00032492-005 Breaks

The respondent argued that the claim was out of time. In addressing the substantive nature of the claim, the respondent submitted that breaks were managed by the chef on duty, where breaks were paid.

The Respondent had not retained a record of the complainants breaks taken.

The Respondent recalled that the complainant did avail of breaks and would sit out the back of building and have coffee or cordial. There was scope to claim back break time which had been missed through surges of activity. The complainant was permitted to avail of a meal if hungry, which would have been deducted from salary.

In closing, the respondent reaffirmed that the complainant had not been dismissed and all claims were out of time and the complainant had not provided sufficient grounds to be awarded an extension on reasonable cause grounds.

Preliminary Issue on Time Limits

I have listened carefully to both parties in this case. I have considered both written submissions and I have reflected on the oral evidence.

The first issue to be decided is whether there are proven grounds for me to extend the statutory time limit in this case? This is the Preliminary Issue on which I will make a separate decision. As I explained to the parties at hearing, If I find in favour of the complainant on the Preliminary Issue, I will move forward to decide on the 5 substantive claims. If I find for the respondent on the Preliminary Issue, this decision will conclude my work in this case.

This is an important consideration.

CA-00032492-001   Claim for Unfair Dismissal

In this case, the complainant has submitted that he was unfairly dismissed. Dismissal is disputed by the Respondent who relies on the letter sent to the complainant dated February 11, 2019 as testament to the job still being available to him.

This letter followed a declaration from the complainant dated 8 February 2019 that he was placing the respondent on notice of proceeding with a claim for unfair dismissal. He requested his P45.

As the letter of February 11 was addressed in a generic fashion, I probed the parties on how carriage was conducted. I learned that the letter had been registered and hand delivered to the complainant’s home.

The complainant confirmed that he received the letter but did not respond it.

The claim for unfair dismissal was lodged on 26 November 2019. While there is some dispute on the actual timing of the meeting between the parties, I have resolved that the meeting occurred on February 1, 2019.

My jurisdiction in this claim is governed by section 8(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act. The claim is required to be present at WRC within 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal.

The WRC received this complaint some 9.5 months post the submitted dismissal. While I accept that dismissal is disputed, I am first bound to consider the complainants locus standus on the statutory time limit and I must explore where his forthright submissions at hearing met the established test for extending the time frame to 12 months on reasonable cause?

(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 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,

and a copy of the notice shall be given by the Director General to the employer concerned as soon as may be after the receipt of the notice by the Director General .

The Labour Court formulated the established test in Cementation Skanska V Carroll WTC03387

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….

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 ha 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 …….. The Court should consider if the respondent has suffered a prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case.

I have reflected on the complainant submission and oral evidence on seeking an extension of time. I fully accept that the complainant was required to support his Mother and prepare for his exams.

However, I am also struck by his participation in finding new work in the corresponding period. This required an allocation of his time also.

It seems to me that the complainant resolved to challenge his purported dismissal several days after the altercation at the bar. He wrote to the respondent to that end on 8 February 2019. He considered the respondents response where he was invited back to work or to tender his resignation. He decided not to engage further with the respondent at that point. He knew that the respondent did not accept that he was dismissed.

A significant time lag followed before this claim was lodged in November 2019. I accept that the complainant has explained the delay and has offered an excuse for this delay. I appreciate that these reasons were genuine. I also accept that the complainant was “emotionally bruised “post his encounter with the respondent. I accept his representatives’ submissions that the first part of the year was challenging for his client across several fronts.

However, I must balance this against the administrative time associated with completing an online application to WRC. The sole issue referred to in the complainants 8 February correspondence was his purported dismissal. There was no reference to the follow on 4 complaints at that stage. The WRC application process is highly efficient, and an outline complaint should take no longer that 10 minutes. There is no requirement for a complainant to enter extensive arguments at that point. An outline submission is what is required, and opportunities are presented to both parties to expand on this foundation document.

I appreciate that the unresolved conflict with his former employer was in the complainant’s mind from February -May 2019. He had been advised by his Solicitor on the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act and had instructed him to advance the claim for Unfair Dismissal by 8 February 2019. I would have expected that a desire to resolve matters would have prompted an earlier application to WRC, given that the complainant had decided not to engage with the February 11 letter.

I have taken some guidance from an earlier Labour Court case of Ballina more House Nursing Home /Raicam Holdings ltd and Aster Kassam Guinan EET 152, This was a case where the complainant sought access to an extension of time due to being unable to function due to discrimination. The complaint was 5 months out of time. The respondent contested the application.

The Labour Court, in refusing to grant the extension of time, determined that the complainant was aware of her grounds for pursuing her case early on, she had the benefit of professional advice on time limits applying. The court held that:

“there is nothing in the material before the court from which it could be held that the factors relied upon in advancing this application either explained the delay or provided a justifiable excuse for the delay “

I have established that the complainant has explained the delay in lodging his claim, but he has not provided a justifiable excuse for the delay. He has not established a causal connection, where had his personal circumstances were not present, he would have entered the complaint in time. In coming to this conclusion, I am guided by his actions in relation to his finding new work during the cognisable period and the overarching period of access to Legal advice. I am certain that there was enough time for him to enter his claim in the 6-month period permitted. On this occasion, I find that I cannot grant an extension of time on reasonable grounds.

As the complainant cannot satisfy the statutory time limit associated with this claim in accordance with section 8(2) (a) of the Act, I must find that his claim is out of time.

CA-00032492-002 Terms of Employment

The complainant submitted that the Act had been contravened in August 2017, resulting from the delay in issuing the complainants written terms of employment. The respondent responded in saying this was an administrative oversight.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 outlines the statutory time limits associated with this complaint.

41(6) 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.

Section 41(8) permits an extension of 6 months if I can identify that the failure to present the complaint was attributable to reasonable cause. The Labour Court formulated the established test in Cementation Skanska V Carroll WTC03387

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, it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd….

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 ha those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.

The length of the delay should be considered. A short delay may require only a slight explanation, whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons ……. The Court should consider if the respondent has suffered a prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case.

I have reflected on the complainant submission and oral evidence on seeking an extension of time. I fully accept that the complainant was required to support his Mother and prepare for his exams.

However, I am also struck by his participation in finding new work in the corresponding period. This required an allocation of his time also.

It seems to me that the complainant resolved to challenge his purported dismissal several days after the altercation at the bar. Both parties accept that the written terms of employment were not discussed by the parties after the contract was signed in August 1, 2017. The complainant had not raised the issue of his written terms of employment prior to February 2019. The respondent admitted that he had not provided the written terms in the obligatory period

A significant time lag followed before this claim was lodged in November 2019. I accept that the complainant has offered an explanation for the delay and has offered an excuse for this delay. I appreciate that these reasons were genuine. I also accept that the complainant was “emotionally bruised “post his encounter with the respondent. I accept his representatives’ submissions that the first part of the year was challenging for his client across several fronts.

However, I must balance this against the administrative time associated with completing an online application to WRC. The sole issue referred to in the complainants 8 February correspondence was his purported dismissal. There was no reference to the instant claim at that stage. The WRC application process is highly efficient, and an outline complaint should take no longer that 10 minutes. There is no requirement for a complainant to enter extensive arguments at that point. An outline submission is what is required, and opportunities are presented to both parties to expand on this foundation document.

I appreciate that the unresolved conflict with his former employer was in the complainant’s mind from February -May 2019. He had been advised by his Solicitor on the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act and had instructed him to advance the claim for Unfair Dismissal by 8 February 2019

I have taken some guidance from an earlier Labour Court case of Ballinamore House Nursing Home /Raicam Holdings ltd and Aster Kassa Guinan EET 152, This was a case where the complainant sought access to an extension of time due to being unable to function due to discrimination. The complaint was 5 months out of time. The respondent contested the application.

The Labour Court, in refusing to grant the extension of time, determined that the complainant was aware of her grounds for pursuing her case early on, she had the benefit of professional advice on time limits applying. The court held that:

“there is nothing in the material before the court from which it could be held that the factors relied upon in advancing this application either explained the delay or provided a justifiable excuse for the delay “

I have established that the complainant has explained the delay in lodging his claim, but he has not provided a justifiable excuse for the delay. He has not established a causal connection, where had his personal circumstances were not present, he would have entered the complaint in time. In coming to this conclusion, I am guided by his actions in relation to his finding new work during the cognisable period and the overarching period of access to Legal advice. I am certain that there was enough time for him to enter his claim in the 6-month period permitted. On this occasion, I find that I cannot grant an extension of time on reasonable grounds.

As the complainant cannot satisfy the statutory time limit associated with this claim in accordance with section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, I must find that his claim is out of time.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00032492-003 Penalisation in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant advanced this complaint under section 26 of the Act. He submitted that he was dismissed for seeking to address his rights to Public Holidays. This was denied by the respondent. This claim is bound by the time limits imposed by Section 41(6) and Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act.

Section 26 addresses a prohibited overlap in a claim for redress under both Unfair Dismissal and Penalisation.

(4) If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under this Act and under those Acts.

(5) In this section ‘penalisation’ means any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes —

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition or the administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

I have considered the complainants application for an extension of time in this case.

I have established that the complainant has explained the delay in lodging his claim, but he has not provided a justifiable excuse for the delay. He has not established a causal connection, where had his personal circumstances were not present, he would have entered the complaint in time. In coming to this conclusion, I am guided by his actions in relation to his finding new work during the cognisable period and the overarching period of access to Legal advice. I am certain that there was enough time for him to enter his claim in the 6-month period permitted. On this occasion, I find that I cannot grant an extension of time on reasonable grounds. (Cementation Skanska applied)

As the complainant cannot satisfy the statutory time limit associated with this claim in accordance with section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, I must find that his claim is out of time.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00032492-004 Public Holidays

The Complainant left his employment on 1 February 2019. This claim was lodged on 26 November 2019. The complainant did not work for the respondent in this intervening period. He has asked that reasonable cause be granted to allow the adjudicator to consider the 12-month period preceding the lodging of the claim for public holidays i.e. from 27 November 2018 onwards. This has been opposed by the respondent.

The issue of public holidays and how they were allocated goes to the heart of the substantive case here. However, I must address the significant time lag before this claim arrived at the WRC in late November 2019.

It is of note that the complainant had in his possession a carefully worded interpretation of section 21 of the Act compiled by his Legal advisors, this advised a potential course of action to WRC if he remained dissatisfied. Both parties acknowledged that February 1, 2019, marked the first discussion on this issue. The Complainant submitted that there had been a growing dissatisfaction amongst the staff and he felt best placed to secure legal advice in January 2019.

I have established that the complainant has explained the delay in lodging his claim, but he has not provided a justifiable excuse for the delay. He has not established a causal connection, where had his personal circumstances were not present, he would have entered the complaint in time. In coming to this conclusion, I am guided by his actions in relation to his finding new work during the cognisable period and the overarching period of access to Legal advice. I am certain that there was enough time for him to enter his claim in the 6-month period permitted. In addition, he had the benefit of Legal advice from at least January 2019 onwards. On this occasion, I find that I cannot grant an extension of time on reasonable grounds. (Cementation Skanska applied)

As the complainant cannot satisfy the statutory time limit associated with this claim in accordance with section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, I must find that his claim is out of time.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00032492-005 Breaks

The complainant left his employment on February 1, 2019 and lodged his claim on breaks on 26 November 2019. He did not work for the respondent during this intervening period, so I was unable to inquire into the breaks in the cognisable period allowed in the claim. The complainant sought an extension of time which was opposed by the respondent.

The issue of breaks does not appear to have found its way for discussion during the live employment period of almost 2 years.

I have considered the application for an extension of time to 12 months in accordance with section 41(8) of the Act.

I have established that the complainant has explained the delay in lodging his claim, but he has not provided a justifiable excuse for the delay. He has not established a causal connection, where had his personal circumstances were not present, he would have entered the complaint in time. In coming to this conclusion, I am guided by his actions in relation to his finding new work during the cognisable period and the overarching period of access to Legal advice. I am certain that there was enough time for him to enter his claim in the 6-month period permitted. In addition, he had the benefit of Legal advice from at least January 2019 onwards. On this occasion, I find that I cannot grant an extension of time on reasonable grounds. (Cementation Skanska applied)

As the complainant cannot satisfy the statutory time limit associated with this claim in accordance with section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, I must find that his claim is out of time.

The claim is not well founded.

Preliminary Issue on Time Limits

CA-00032492-001   Claim for Unfair Dismissal

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I have found that the claim for Unfair Dismissal is out of time.

CA-00032492-002 Terms of Employment

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, requires that I decide in accordance with section 3 of that Act.

I have found that the claim is out of time and is not well founded.

CA-00032492-003 Penalisation in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires that I decide in accordance with section 26 (1) of that Act.

I have found that the claim is out of time and is not well founded.

CA-00032492-004 Public Holidays

Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires that I decide in accordance with Section 21 of that Act.

I have found that the claim is out of time and is not well founded.

CA-00032492-005 Breaks

Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires that I decide in accordance with Section 12 of that Act.

I have found that the claim is out of time and is not well founded.

I will conclude this decision by reflecting that it may have assisted both parties to have had a much earlier face to face engagement on the core aspect of the case, that of the public holidays in a time protected and structured meeting.

However, as I cannot grant an extension of time in any of the 5 complaints, I must decide that I cannot advance to forming decisions on the substantive aspects of the claims.

Penalisation under Working Time Act, Breaks, Public Holidays, Unfair Dismissal and Terms of Employment