Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Geraldine  Forrestal

Core College Company Limited T/A  The Irish School of Herbal Medicine

Representatives

Audrey Goode Byrne and O’Sullivan Solicitors

Lisa Conroy Peninsula Group Limited

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-00042890-001

05/03/2021

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

CA-00044748-001

23/06/2021

The Complainant was employed as a part time Dispensary Manager and Administrator with the Respondent from 1 August 2018 until 9 October 2020, the date of termination of her employment. She earned €276.50 for a 21-hour week.  The Respondent operates a small private teaching school in herbal medicine. The Claimant has lodged proceedings under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, alleging that she was unfairly dismissed.  The Respondent denies this allegation and submits that the Complainant’s role was made redundant. 

The Complainant submitted a further complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 on the 23rd of June 2021.  The Respondent submits that this complaint is out of time for the purposes of the Act.

CA-00042890-001: Unfair Dismissal

The Respondent operates a small private teaching school offering a four-year professional training course in herbal medicine. The course is part-time and online in terms of attendance; however, students are required to complete 600 hours of clinical training in person. The Respondent provides a dispensary on site where students are involved with herbalists in treating patients as part of their clinical training.

 In March 2020 the COVID19 pandemic hit Ireland and the Government implemented a lock down, which resulted in the closure of many industries across the state.  The Respondent was no exception to this and experienced a significant reduction in turnover due to restrictions placed on both the school’s student clinic and potential for international students to attend the school for their mandatory clinical training.

The Respondent submits that they could continue to provide online classes, but students would not attend the facility.  At this time the Respondent Business Owner (hereinafter ‘the Owner’) gave evidence that they enquired as to the Complainant’s preference to continue in part-time employment on site. She stated that the Complainant informed them that would rather go on lay off and receive the pandemic unemployment payment.

 The Respondent was unable to have students or patients on site to make use of the dispensary and as such placed the Complainant on lay off.  To fill the absence cause by the Complainant in her light administrative duties, the Owner outlined how others absorbed these duties.

 During the period of March to July 2020, the Complainant was in receipt of the Pandemic

Unemployment Payment (PUP). She returned to work in July 2020.

 However, at this time the Respondent was still facing a downturn in the numbers of patients and students attending the clinic, linked to the stringent restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The Owner gave evidence that following a series of meetings and consultations with their accountants, the decision was made in September 2020 to make the role of Herbal Dispensary Manager redundant. The Respondent asserts that this was a standalone redundancy.

The Owner testified that she was satisfied that the role could be carried out by other staff members, including management, and tutors. A senior manager has taken over the administration role, the other herbalists/tutors, including management, absorbed the herbal dispensary work.

 The Complainant was made redundant on the 29th of September 2020. The Owner accepted in evidence, that in hindsight, she did not follow proper procedures in managing the redundancy situation.

The Owner gave evidence of happenings on the date she informed the Complainant of the redundancy of her position. The Owner and a senior manager (hereinafter ‘the Manager’) spoke to the Complainant at the reception desk and advised her of the school’s intention to make the role of administrator and herbal dispensary manager redundant due to the downturn in the numbers of patients and students attending at the clinic due to Covid restrictions. The Owner said that this conversation became emotional for both the Complainant and herself. The Complainant asked for a moment alone and went to the library which is just off reception.  After approximately 5 minutes, the Owner and the Manager, entered the library, but the Owner found that the Complainant was still quite upset and as a supportive gesture, she suggested that the Complainant take the rest of the day at home with pay if she so wished.

 The Owner said that they also discussed the option of the Complainant taking payment in lieu of her two-week notice period if she did not wish to work her notice period. This was not intended to be anything other than a supportive gesture to the Complainant

 The Owner employed her nephew to complete software installation work, which was essential as the Respondents business is based primarily online. The Owner stated that this person was not qualified to, nor was he carrying out the Complainant’s role. This person was not a full-time permanent employee but was employed to complete projects on an ad hoc basis. He is no longer employed by the school having completed the technical work for which he was employed.

The Owner gave evidence that the Respondent has had to hire an additional tutor to the practice to meet the demands of the class ratios.  Social distancing requirements meant that the number of students involved in a consultation is reduced by 50%. The reduction required the Respondent to offer extra clinical training days. This resulted in the need to hire an extra tutor. This added further to the school’s expenses.  The Respondent submits that these employees were hired following the redundancy of the Complainant’s role, however, they are not in her role.

Legal Argument:

The Complainant has alleged that she has been unfairly dismissed under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

 S.6(4) Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following: …

(c) the redundancy of the employee…

 S.7(2) Redundancy Payments Act 1973 (as amended) provides:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was dismissed as her role became redundant following the COVID19 pandemic. The Claimant was placed on lay off as student numbers and patient numbers decreased due to pandemic restrictions as testified to by the Complainant in her submission.

The Respondent seeks to rely on section 7(2) (e) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1973 The Respondent had to make structural changes to their business following the pandemic. The Complainant’s duties were absorbed by other staff members.

The Respondent had to consider the roles within the school, the herbalists brought in cashflow to the school. However, the Dispensary Manager and Administrator role was a support role and was able to be absorbed upwards.

 The Respondent submits that even coming into 2021 and following the easing of lockdowns they are still impacted due to social distancing rules. In the High Court case of Ponisi v JVC Europe Ltd [2011] IEHC 279 it was held that:

 “Redundancy is not, however, a personal choice. It is, in essence, the external or internal economic or technological reorienting of an enterprise whereby the work of employees needs to be shed or to be carried out in an entirely different manner. As such, redundancy is entirely impersonal. Dismissal, on the other hand, is a decision targeted at an individual.”

 The Respondent submits that the redundancy at hand only took place to an external economic factor, that being COVID19. The Respondent submits that the redundancy of the Dispensary Managers role was impersonal.

In the case of St Ledger v Frontline Distribution Ireland Ltd [1995] E.L.R. 160 it was held that:

“Change also runs through all five definitions. This means change in the workplace. The most dramatic change of all is a complete close down. Change may also mean a reduction in needs for employees, or a reduction in numbers. Definitions (d) and (e) involve change in the way the work is done or some other form of change in the nature of the job. Under these two definitions change in the job must mean qualitative change. Definition (e) must involve, partly at least, work of a different kind, and that is the only meaning we can put on the words ‘other work’. More work or less work of the same kind does not mean ‘other work’ and is only quantitative change.”

 The EAT in Boucher -v- Irish Productivity Centre [1994] ELR 205 firmly made two key statements:

“The onus of proof is on the employer to establish that he acted fairly in the selection of an employee for redundancy”.

“Where selection for redundancy involves consideration of employee’s contribution and versatility to the respondent those in the group likely to be dismissed should be made aware that such assessment was being made and they should be given an opportunity to give their views which should be considered. To be considered fair the assessment should have the characteristics of an enquiry.”

 The Respondent submits that they acted fairly in the selection of the Dispensary Managers role for redundancy. The role is a standalone role, which during lockdown was not in practice and where duties could be broken up and absorbed by other parties to save costs.

 The Respondent further submits that this redundancy did not factor in the Complainant’s contribution to the role and no assessment was made on the Claimants own performance.  The Respondent contends that this was a genuine redundancy that was caused by difficulties associated with the pandemic. The Respondent has never been in this position previously.

 Mitigation of Loss:

 The Respondent submits that the Complainant at the time of lodging her claim had not secured alternative employment.  The Complainant was dismissed on the 29 of September 2020 and lodged her claim on 5 March 2021. It is incumbent upon the Complainant to seek to mitigate her losses as per Section 7(2)(c) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

of the Act.

 The Respondent refers to the decision of Coad v Eurobase (UD1138/2013) where the Tribunal noted, “In calculating the level of compensation the Tribunal took into consideration the efforts of the claimant to mitigate his losses and finds that these efforts do not meet the standard as set out by the Tribunal is Sheehan v Continental Administration Co. Ltd. (UD858/1999) that a claimant who finds himself out of work should employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work. It is not enough to inform agencies that you are available for work nor merely to post an application to various companies seeking work…the time that a claimant finds on his hands is not his own, unless he chooses it to be, but rather to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss.”

 The Respondent also refers to the decision of Mlynarski -v- Pianos Plus (UD 1294/2008) where the claimant was awarded no compensation. The Tribunal held that:

“…the dismissal of the claimant was procedurally unfair and therefore the dismissal was an unfair dismissal… The Tribunal determines that the claimant was unfairly dismissed … and finds that the claimant’s contribution to his own dismissal is such that the appropriate remedy is an award of compensation in a nil sum.”

 The Respondent further notes that the Complainant has a designated Facebook page and website dedicated to her own herbalist practice.

CA-00044748-001 Terms of Employment

Preliminary Argument:

The Complainant has lodged additional papers under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 on 23 June 2021. The Respondent respectfully submits that this complaint is out of time for the purposes of the Act.  

CA-00042890-001 – Unfair Dismissal.

The Complainant was employed in a role which involved general administration duties and management of the office. She was not provided with a Contract of Employment and as such this is an assumption only. The Complainant agreed her employment at a rate of €13 per hour.

When the Complainant commenced her employment in August 2018, her employer operated a clinic for five consecutive days for one week in the month and during that week the Complainant would work from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with one-hour lunch break. The other weeks within that month, she would work two days from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Thereafter this working week changed where the clinics would happen three days per week. The clinics were three days per week every second week and her hours were 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on those days but she was at all times flexible.   The other weeks she would work for two days in the week from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and this remained the position until Covid -19 struck the country in March 2020 when her employer was compelled to close the business. It did not reopen until July 2020. The Complainant was in receipt of the Covid payment from the period of March 2020 to July 2020.

The Complainant was at all times flexible in relation to her approach to work with the Respondent. Three times per year the Respondent organised weekend workshops in Maynooth and during this period work in the office would naturally increase so she would increase her days of work to three or four days in the week at the request of the Respondent.   Similarly, there was, at times, a Saturday morning requirement if and when the Respondent was running a course and she would go in for a half day and would only be advised by her employers on the Friday evening, but she had no problem in assisting for the betterment of the company and her employer.

The Complainant gave evidence of returning to work in July 2020 in line with Covid-19 Government Guidelines at the request of the Respondent and continued her work as before with all of the usual administration and office duties.

The Complainant stated that she received a text message from the Manager.  The Manager asked if she could work on Tuesday the 29th September 2020.   The Complainant was not due to work that day and it was under the assumption there was delivery of a new desk due that she went into work. The Complainant attended at the office and there was nobody else due to work that day. The Complainant contacted the Owner to advise her that the desk had been delivered. The response that the Complainant received from the Owner was that herself and the Manager were on the way to the work premises and would be arriving shortly. The Complainant did not anticipate or expect that there would be anything unusual in this, and upon arrival, the Owner approached the Complainant in Reception and indicated to her that she must know why she was asked to come in. The Complainant had no idea to what the Owner was referring. The Owner went on to say that they would have to let the Complainant go and they would be making her redundant. This came as a complete surprise to the Complainant who had at no point anticipated nor was she given any indication that her job was at risk.  The Complainant became extremely distressed and upset and burst into tears and was unable to communicate with the Respondent in relation to this shocking news.

The Owner went on to explain that this decision was being taken on foot of advices from their Accountant and that the Manager would proceed to carry out her duties as she was not seeing many patients. She also stated to the Complainant that they were taking on less patients and students due to the Covid Pandemic. The Complainant was at no point given any indication that this decision was coming.

The Respondent did not write to the Complainant to advise her that she was at risk of redundancy. The Respondent failed to give the Complainant as much warning as possible in relation to the potential risk of losing her job.  The Respondent did not call a formal meeting but effectively ambushed the Complainant in relation to advising her that she was to be made redundant and would lose her job. The Respondent failed to seek any input from the Complainant in relation to any proposals that she may have had in relation to keeping her job. There were ample supports available to employers during this period due to Covid-19 and the Complainant would have been in a position to proceed with a Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP) from the Government to enable the business to remain operational without the draw of wages on their finances. The Respondent failed to give the Complainant an opportunity to have a work colleague present at this meeting when she was advised of being made redundant and similarly she was not given a right of appeal to a third party in respect of this matter, nor was she given a right to representation at this appeal. The findings were not given to her in written format and effectively the Respondent has failed at every juncture and these acts amount to unfair dismissal on the part of the Respondent.

Mitigation of Loss

The Complainant gave evidence that losing her job had a detrimental effect on her self-esteem to the extent that between October 2020 to April 2021 she was in no position to apply for further work. She had an online practice with regard to herbal medicine but could not earn an income from the business during the pandemic in that she could not allow visitors into her home.  She applied for over various positions online from April 2021 and eventually secured part-time work in a local café/bar on 17 September 2021 for a wage of €203 per week.

CA-00044748-001 – Terms of Employment

Preliminary Point:

The Complainant submits that she was outside the six-month time period for the submission of her complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 because she was not aware of her rights until she sought legal advice. The Complainant is seeking to have the period for submission of the complaint extended for another six months on the basis of reasonable cause.

On the substantive issue, the Complainant submits that she never received a written contract of employment nor a written copy of her terms of employment under the aforementioned. Act.

CA-00042890 –001:  Unfair Dismissal. 

The Applicable law:

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides that: -  

Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act; to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6(4)(c) of the 1977 Act provides that: -  

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from ... the redundancy of the employee...

Section 6(7) provides that: -

 Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so —

(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

(b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended, provides a relevant definition of valid redundancy in Section 7(2)(c):

The fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had being doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise.

Charleton J. in the High Court case of   JVC Europe v Jerome Ponisi [2012] 23 E.L.R. 70stated:

           “That it may be prudent, and a mark of a genuine redundancy, that an employer prior to making an employee redundant examine alternatives to letting that employee go and conduct a fair selection procedure. As a matter of contract where selection processes for redundancy or a consultation process to discover alternatives to redundancy are contained in a collective agreement or an individual employment contract, these should be followed. That a fair procedure may be used to disguise deceptive conduct and followed in form only in order to mask an ulterior motive.”             

The first question that has to be asked is whether there was a valid redundancy situation in the Respondent company. The burden of proof rests with the Respondent to establish that the dismissal was wholly redundancy connected and the Respondent must then justify the process whereby the Complainant was selected for redundancy, was fair and transparent in all respects. Plausible evidence was submitted by the Director that student numbers had significantly dropped and that the business was adversely affected. I am satisfied that the Respondent was faced with having to reduce costs and the decision to make the Complainant redundant was taken for economic reasons.  I am therefore satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed at the time. However, in circumstances where redundancy is unavoidable, the Respondent is obliged to establish reasonable and objective criteria for selection and must apply those criteria fairly.

In Tolerance Technologies Limited –v- Joe Foran UDD1638 is a case where the Labour Court found;

“The Court, while finding that the respondent’s position was redundant also found that the manner of his dismissal as a result was procedurally unfair. The respondent was not consulted adequately. He was not afforded representation and he was denied the opportunity to engage with the company board when he requested the facility in a situation when he was not satisfied with the termination of the employment which had been communicated to him at a meeting on 27th and 28th October 2015”.  

 I note that in the Owner in her evidence accepted that she did not abide by what can be termed as proper procedures when it came to the Complainant’s redundancy. No advance warning letter was issued to the Complainant, no consultation or representation was allowed, no appeal was facilitated, and no consideration was given to the possibility of retaining the Complainant on the PUP payment which would have been available at the time as method for protecting the employment of the Complainant. The whole process of dismissing the Complainant took 30 minutes which was a stark illustration of failure of the Respondent to abide by the any established procedure.  

In Bunyan –v- United Dominion Trust (Ireland) Limited 1982 ILRM404 the EAT endorsed and applied the view quoted from NC Watling Co. Limited –v- Richardson 1978 IRLR225 where it was stated;

“The fairness or unfairness of dismissal is to be judged by the objective standard of the way in which a reasonable employer in those circumstances in that line of business would have behaved. The Tribunal therefore, does not decide the question of whether, on the evidence before it, the employee should be dismissed. The decision to be dismissed has been taken, and our function is to test such decision against what we consider the reasonable employer would have done and/or concluded”.

Having considered the evidence and the submissions in this case, I find that the Respondent did not manage the termination of the Complainant’s employment in a proper manner.  The Respondent departed from the standard of reasonableness that a reasonable employer would have shown when dealing with an employee in similar circumstances. By reference to Section 6(7)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, I find that the dismissal of the Complainant was unfair.

Redress:

Section 7 of the Act, in its relevant parts, provides:

7. Redress for unfair dismissal:  

(1) Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

…. (c) (i) if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(ii) if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances,

and the reference in the foregoing paragraphs to an employer shall be construed, in a case where the ownership of the business of the employer changes after the dismissal, as references to the person who, by virtue of the change, becomes entitled to such ownership.  

…. (3) In this section—

“financial loss”, in relation to the dismissal of an employee, includes any actual loss and any actual loss and any estimated prospective loss of income attributable to the dismissal and the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to [2014], or in relation to superannuation;

“remuneration” includes allowances pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay.

The Respondent refers to the decision of Coad v Eurobase (UD1138/2013)where the Tribunal noted, “In calculating the level of compensation the Tribunal took into consideration the efforts of the claimant to mitigate his losses and finds that these efforts do not meet the standard as set out by the Tribunal is Sheehan v Continental Administration Co. Ltd. (UD858/1999) that a claimant who finds himself out of work should employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work. It is not enough to inform agencies that you are available for work nor merely to post an application to various companies seeking work…the time that a claimant finds on his hands is not his own, unless he chooses it to be, but rather to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss.”

The position in Coad clearly sets out the obligation of complainants to mitigate their loss. I note in this case that the Complainant did not try to mitigate her loss in the initial months from October 2020 to April 2021. There is an obligation to actively do so and I am satisfied that the overall efforts of the Complainant to find alternative employment were somewhat feeble, although she eventually found employment on a part-time basis in September 2021.  In assessing the loss, I must also take account of the fact that the Complainant received her statutory redundancy sum and that the dismissal was unfair because of procedural flaws, more than anything else.  

Having taken the foregoing into account, I order that the Respondent pay the Complainant the compensatory sum of €5,000 which I find is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.  

CA-00044748-001 – Terms of Employment

Preliminary Point: Jurisdictional Issue.

In considering the Complainants case, I must first establish as to whether there is merit in the Respondent’s application to have the complaint declared out of time. The Complainant contends that she was not aware of her rights under the Act at the time she submitted the above Unfair Dismissals complaint, and it was only in June 2021 when she received legal advice that she was aware of her right. The Complainant argues that there is reasonable cause for an application to extend the submission period by a further six months.

Section 41 (1) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides:

(1)    An employee (in this Act referred to as a “complainant”) or, where the employee so consents, a specified person may present a complaint to the Director General that the employee's employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 5 in relation to the employee and, where a complaint is so presented, the Director General shall, subject to section 39, refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer.

Subsections (6) and (8) further provide the regulation on time limits for submission of claims and whether a time limit can be extended for a further six months:

(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…

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

The applicable test in relation to establishing if reasonable cause has been shown for the purposes of granting an extension of time is that formulated by the Labour Court in the case of Cementation Skanska v Carroll, (DWT 38/2003) as follows; 

“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.”

On the matter of lack of awareness of employment rights, I refer to the Labour Court Determination in Globe Technical Services Limited v Kristin Miller UD1824. In that case the complainant argued her lack of knowledge on time limits for submitting a claim was based on the fact she was not a resident in this jurisdiction and was therefore unfamiliar with the processes.  The Court stated:

“It is settled law that ignorance of one’s legal rights, as opposed to the underlying facts giving rise to a complaint, cannot provide a justifiable excuse for failure to bring a claim in time.”

In this instant case the Complainant pleaded lack of knowledge of time limits and submitted that she relied upon legal advice in June 2021 for awareness of her entitlement. Having considered the argument put forward by the Complainant in applying for an extension of time, I conclude that the reason put forward does not offer an excuse for the delay.

I find that the Complainant has not established that there was reasonable cause justifying her delay in referring this complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission and I allow the Respondent’s preliminary objection that the complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 was out of time.

CA-00042890–001: Unfair Dismissal:

I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory sum of €5,000 which I find is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00044748-001 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

I find that the Complainant has not established that there was reasonable cause justifying the delay in referring this complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. I deem this complaint to be out of time.  

Unfair Dismissals Act 1997, Redundancy, Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, Time Periods,