Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Office administrator

Regional newspaper

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00033732-001

12/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00033732-002

12/11/2019

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

CA-00033732-003

12/11/2019

The Complainant had previously lodged a similar complaint under ADJ-00021698.

The Complainant's case is that she commenced employment with the regional newspaper in February 1991. At that time the newspaper was owned by a named individual.

Between that time and 2005 the newspaper was sold a number of times to different owners. In 2005 the Complainant was employed by a named limited liability company.

In April 2014 there was another change in ownership for the newspaper and the Complainant submitted that the Respondent became her employer.

The Complainant worked a 3-day week and was paid €565.62 per week.

She explained that she was never provided with a contract of employment nor a staff handbook.

The Complainant was advised that her position could be made redundant in January 2019. She was asked for her submissions in the redundancy process as selection hadn't taken place. She made submissions as to why she should not be chosen to be made redundant.

A meeting took place in February 2019.  At the meeting the Complainant was advised that her position was being made redundant.  No possible alternatives were considered by the Respondent.  She was not offered an opportunity to appeal the decision.

The Complainant’s employment was terminated on the 5 April 2019.  She received a redundancy payment of €32,455.00.

The Respondent objected to the Complainant's application to extend time to bring her complaint against the Respondent.

It submitted that it was in an unusual position as the Complainant was bringing a complaint against two Respondents claiming she was in employment by both. She was not applying to substitute one named Respondent for another.

The Respondent was named as a trustee of the Complainant's pension.

The Complainant had in her possession several legal documents which identified the correct name of her employer.

While the Respondent admitted there was an administration error in payroll and a number of payslips listed the incorrect name of the Complainant's employer, this was corrected in mid- 2018.

It submitted that the Complainant had the benefit of legal and taxation advice and she didn’t submit her complaint within the required 6-month period required by the Workplace Relations Act 2015.  She had not satisfied the test of reasonable cause to extend the time limits by a further 12 months.

I have considered the evidence presented to me by both sides in writing and orally at the hearing.

The Complainant applied for an extension of time as set out in Section 41(8) Workplace Relations Act 2015.  No submission was made by either side in respect of Section 39(4) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. 

The import of “reasonable cause” as used in section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 has been the subject of a lot of consideration by the WRC and the Labour Court.

In Salesforce.com v Alli Leech EDA1615 the Labour Court stated:

“The established test for deciding if an extension should be granted for reasonable cause shown is that formulated by this Court in Labour Court Determination DWT0338 Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll. Here the test was set out in the following terms: -

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.

In Servier Ireland Industries Limited -v- Juanita Wilkinson EDA 1713, the Labour Court held

“It clear from the authorities that the test places the onus on the applicant for an extension of time to identify the reason for the delay and to establish that the reason relied upon provides a justifiable excuse for the actual delay. Secondly, the onus is on the applicant to establish a causal connection between the reason proffered for the delay and his or her failure to present the complaint in time. Thirdly, the Court must be satisfied, as a matter of probability, that the complaint would have been presented in time were it not for the intervention of the factors relied upon as constituting reasonable cause. It is the actual delay that must be explained and justified. Hence, if the factors relied upon to explain the delay ceased to operate before the complaint was presented, that may undermine a claim that those factors were the actual cause of the delay. Finally, while the established test imposes a relatively low threshold of reasonableness on an applicant, there is some limitation on the range of issues which can be taken into account.”

I have reviewed the facts and circumstances known by the Complainant in the first six months after the Complainant's dismissal from her employment.  She had in her possession information which identified the Respondent as her employer.  She had two P60’s naming the Respondent and pension documents. 

None of the evidence presented to me identified an objective reason why she did not bring her complaint against the Respondent within the required six-month time limit. 

It is well settled that an applicant for an extension of time must both explain the delay and provide a justifiable excuse for the delay. While I appreciate the time limit was short, no reasonable explanation has been offered to excuse the delay once she became aware of the difficulties outlined above on the 30 September 2019.  The Complainant didn’t lodge her complaint before the 6 months’ time limit expired on the 4 October 2019.  The Complainant lodged her complaint on 9 January 2020. 

I cannot accept that the Complainant was impaired in presenting her claim under the Acts in a timely fashion. For these reasons I cannot identify any justifiable basis upon which an extension of time could be granted in this case.

This complaint is not well founded.  I have no jurisdiction to hear this complaint as it was brought outside of time limits set out in the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

Extension of time limit.