ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026600
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Lebam Macaw | Enable Ireland |
Representatives | Not represented | Arthur Cox Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00033893-001 | 17/01/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/11/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
This complaint was submitted to the WRC on January 17th 2020, and, in accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, it was referred to me by the Director General. Due to several postponements and the closure of the WRC during the Covid-19 pandemic, a hearing was delayed until November 23rd 2021. Ms Macaw attended the hearing alone and was not represented. Enable Ireland was represented by Mr Séamus Given of Arthur Cox Solicitors and he was accompanied by the Human Resources Manager, Ms Claire McKenna.
Background:
Ms Macaw commenced employment with Enable Ireland in September 2006. In February 2007, her employment was terminated by agreement between her and her then employer and she accepted a payment in full and final settlement of all claims against the company. In December 2019, Ms Macaw sent a form ES1 to Enable Ireland alleging that, when she was employed, she was discriminated against on the grounds of her gender, civil status, age and race. Enable Ireland responded on December 11th, denying the allegations. Ms Macaw then submitted this complaint to the WRC. On receipt of the notification of this complaint, on behalf of Enable Ireland, Arthur Cox Solicitors wrote to the WRC on January 22nd 2020. The letter referred to the fact that Ms Macaw left her employment with Enable Ireland in February 2007 and that her complaint had been submitted outside the statutory limit. A reply was issued by the WRC on January 23rd, explaining that this jurisdictional issue is a matter for the adjudicator. I have reviewed the documents Ms Macaw sent to the WRC in preparation for this hearing. I have concluded that, as her complaint was submitted almost 13 years after any alleged act of discrimination could have taken place, I have no jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry. It is regrettable that Ms Macaw attended a hearing in the expectation of having her complaint adjudicated upon, although I note that she refused to attend a remote hearing and that she insisted on attending in person. As a former senior manager in the health sector, I am satisfied that Ms Macaw is capable of reading the guidance notes regarding complaints under the Equal Status Acts, which are available on the website of the WRC and the Citizens Information Centre and that she was aware of the requirement to submit her complaint within the time limit. For completeness, I have set out my findings regarding this matter below. |
Preliminary Issue: Failure to Comply with the Statutory Time Limits:
Failure to Comply with the Notification Time Limit Ms Macaw has failed to comply with the statutory time limit of two months, or, for reasonable cause, four months, for notifying the respondent of her intention to submit a complaint. This requirement is at section 21(2) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 (“the Act”). Ms Macaw submitted the ES1 form to Enable Ireland in December 2019 arising from a response from the Office of the Information Commissioner to her freedom of information request in April 2019. Section 21(3)(a)(ii) of the Act provides that, “exceptionally,” where I am satisfied that it is fair and reasonable, I may dispense with the requirement for a complainant to notify a respondent of their intention to make a claim within four months. Ms Macaw’s explanation for the delay was that she didn’t understand Irish law and that she was unaware of the function of the WRC. This explanation does not amount to exceptional or even unusual circumstances and Ms Macaw delayed for 12 years and 10 months before she notified her former employer of her intention to make a complaint. It is my view that, if she was seriously motivated to make a complaint of discrimination, she would have familiarised herself with the workings of the WRC and its involvement in the adjudication of complaints. This information is easily and freely available on the internet. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that I should dispense with the requirement for her to notify the respondent within four months of an alleged discriminatory act. Failure to Comply with the Statutory Time Limit for Submitting a Complaint to the WRC Secondly, Ms Macaw has failed to comply with the time limit of six months, or, for reasonable cause, 12 months, for submitting a complaint to the WRC. This requirement is at section 21(6) of the Act. Ms Macaw sent her complaint form to the WRC on January 17th 2020; whereas the maximum time limit of 12 months expired on February 19th 2008, one year after her employment with Enable Ireland was terminated by mutual agreement. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
As the Equal Status Act provides for no exception to the limit of 12 months for submitting a complaint of discrimination to the WRC, I decide that, in accordance with section 21(6)(b) of the Act, I have no jurisdiction to hear Ms Macaw’s complaint. |
Dated: 26th November 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Time limits |