Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Storeman

 A Manufacturing Company

Representatives

 none

Jan Hayden IBEC

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-00029699-001

16/07/2019

This case was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Complainant was a storeman for the Respondent. His employment commenced in 2015 and ended on the 25 July 2018. 

The Complainant lodged his complaint with the WRC on 16 July 2019.

The Complainant's case is that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment on the 25 July 2018.

He set out that he was not given fair process in the disciplinary procedure applied to him from beginning to end. There were procedural flaws throughout the investigation, disciplinary and appeal process.

He submitted that the HR Manager was involved from the onset, he attended and was involved in the investigation and disciplinary process and he also attended his appeal hearing.

He believed he was not afforded fair procedures in the process leading to his dismissal from employment.

As regards the delay in lodging his complaint with the WRC, the Complainant explained that he did all in his power to bring complaints in good time to the WRC. He contacted his Union and provided the paperwork they asked of him, however he heard nothing further from his Union.

In July 2019 he contacted a firm of solicitors who advised him of the time limits to bring a complaint to the WRC.

The Complainant lodged his complaint on 16 July 2019.

The Respondents position was that the Complainant was fairly dismissed following a fair and thorough investigation and disciplinary process.

They highlighted the serious allegations that the Complainant made against his Union about the late filing of his complaint. 

They explained that they had received correspondence from his Union which stated that the Complainant had informed his Union that he had engaged with a Solicitor and they would not be needed as representation.

It was the Respondent’s view therefore that there was no reason why the Complainant could not have pursued his claim within the timeframes outlined under the Unfair Dismissal legislation, given that he had engaged with both a Trade Union and a legal representative.

Their preliminary submission was that the Complainants complaint was out of time.

The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant was unavailable for work for the period immediately following his dismissal. This is because he took up a third level course.

As regards the allegations of procedural unfairness during the disciplinary process, the Respondent submitted that they acted reasonably in dealing with the Complainant.  He was afforded all benefits of fair procedure, in line with the Company’s established policy, the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures and the universal principles of natural justice. 

As an Adjudication Officer, I have the power under Section 8(2)(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act to extend the time limit to refer a complaint to the WRC.

The power to extend time for “reasonable cause” provided by Section 8(2) was fully considered by the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT 38/2003. It was 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 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.”

I have considered the evidence of both sides in relation to the time limits for lodging a claim under the Unfair dismissals Act.

The Complainant was represented by his Union during the investigation and disciplinary process. The Respondent received correspondence from the Union that its services were no longer required by the Complainant.

I prefer this evidence than that of the Complainant.

I do not accept that the Complainant has shown reasons which explain the delay or offer an excuse for the delay in lodging his complaint.

The Complainant has lodged his complaint outside the time limits set out in Section 8(2) of the Unfair Dismissal Act.

In these circumstances, I have no jurisdiction to deal with this complaint.  

This complaint is not well founded.

Time limits. Reasonable cause