ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032502
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Velimir Eldic | Team Obair Limited |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Self-Represented |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00043100-001 | 16/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00043100-002 | 16/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/08/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 30th October 2018. His contract of employment was terminated on 15th March 2020. On 16th March 2021, the Complainant lodged two complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act with the Commission. Herein, the Complainant alleged that he did not receive compensation for untaken annual leave on the termination of his employment. The Complainant also alleged that he did not receive adequate compensation for Sunday work, in contravention of the Act. A hearing in relation to this matter was convened and finalised on 6th August 2021. This hearing was conducted 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. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing. At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint as presented. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case as to the Preliminary Issue:
The Respondent submitted that as the Complainant last day of employment was in excess of one year prior to the lodgement of the complaint form, the matter was statute barred. They further submitted that even in the event that the Complainant can establish “reasonable cause” so as to extend the relevant period for the purposes of the complainant, the maximum to which this period may be extended is twelve months. As the substantive matter of the present complaint occurred in excess of twelve months previous, the matter is statute barred in any event. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case as to the Preliminary Issue:
At the outset of the hearing, the Complainant applied for an extension of the relevant period for the purposes of this claim. In this regard, the Complainant submitted that he could demonstrate “reasonable cause” as he was unaware of his rights in this regard, and that he had been seeking recourse against another company at the same time. In making this application, it was put to the Complainant that the contract to which the complaint relates had in fact terminated on the 15th March 2020, exactly one year and one day prior to his submitting the present complaint. The Complainant accepted that this was the case and that the subject matter of the complaint occurred in excess of twelve months prior to the referral of the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 6(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that, “…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 6(8) provides that, “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 present complaint relates to the alleged non-payment of annual leave and an appropriate Sunday premium. The complaint form in this regard was received by the Commission on 16th March 2021. In such circumstances, the cognisable period for the purposes of the complaint is either 16th September 2020 to 16th March 2021, or 16th March 2020 to 16th March 2021, should I determine that the failure to present the complaint was due to “reasonable cause”. It is common case that the Complainant’s employment with the Respondent was terminated on 15th March 2020 and no employment relationship existed after that date. In such circumstances, even if I were to find grounds to extend the relevant period for the purposes of the Act, it is clear that no breach of the Act occurred within the cognisable period. As a consequence of the same, I find that the complaint is not well-founded and the Complainant’s application fails. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00043100-001 I find that no breach of the Act occurred within the cognisable period. As a consequence of the same, I find that the complaint is not well-founded and the Complainant’s application fails. CA-00043100-002 I find that no breach of the Act occurred within the cognisable period. As a consequence of the same, I find that the complaint is not well-founded and the Complainant’s application fails. |
Dated: 04/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Extension of Time, Cognisable period |