FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY FÓRSA) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s)ADJ-00030546 CA-00040653 The Union submitted that it had been in discussions with the Employer prior to the Worker retiring and the issue had in fact been referred to the conciliation services of the WRC on the 5thOctober 2018 and was therefore in time. The Union sought to rely on some correspondence in support of this content and provided the Court with a copy of an email from the WRC to the Employer asking the Employer if they were agreeable to attend the Employer responded stating that the internal mechanisms had not yet been exhausted. The Union also drew the Court’s attention to an email of 21stFebruary 2020 which the Union had sent to the HSE advising that the issue had been referred to conciliation in November 2018 and postponed but that the Union would need to reactivate it soon if the matter was not resolved. As the issue was not resolved the Union referred the issue for adjudication on the 28 October 2020. It is the Union’s submission that the complaint is not out of time as once they had referred the issue into conciliation the time limit had been complied with and the time limit clock in effect stopped. The Employer submitted that the Union’s position was a misunderstanding of the law around time limits. Section 26 (a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 states; (1)Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other enactment, but subject to subsection (2), an adjudication officer or the Court shall not investigate a trade dispute to which a worker who has ceased to be employed by reason of his or her retirement is a party unless
The Court in considering the submissions from the parties on this issue notes that no explanation was forthcoming as to why if the Union believed that the conciliation was still on hold in 2020 it did not revert to and proceed with that process. The complaint before the Court arose not from conciliation but from a complaint lodged with the adjudication services of the WRC. This complaint was lodged two years after the Worker had retired. The Court finds that this complaint is misconceived and that lodging a complaint under one process but not proceeding with that complaint cannot stop the time limit clock in respect of a complaint lodged two years later under a different process. The Court finds that the complaint is out of time and that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Decision of the Adjudication officer is upheld The Court so decides.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary. |