Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Giuseppe  Stella

Atradius Reinsurance Dac

Representatives

Michael McCormack B.L. instructed by William Fry LLP.

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00044931-001

02/07/2021

By way of a preliminary issue the complaint form was received on July 2nd, 2021, almost fifteen months after the date of the dismissal and the respondent submits that it has not been made within the time limits specified in the legislation and should be dismissed.

The complainant began his employment with the respondent on May 1st , 2016 and the employment ended on April 15th, 2020.

He complains that his employment ended on that date by reason of a constructive unfair dismissal.

The respondent says that there is no dispute on the relevant dates and therefore no oral evidence in order to establish the facts is necessary on that point.

The complaint was submitted some fourteen months and three weeks after the date of the alleged breach of the Act.

The statutory provision is unambiguous, and the respondent submits that the jurisdictional issue should be determined as a preliminary issue in order to avoid the unnecessary inconvenience and expense of a substantive hearing.

On the preliminary matter the respondent referred to the WRC guidance note for the hearing issued in July 2021 which states that.

The Adjudication Officer will ask if any preliminary issues need to be addressed. In the vast majority of cases he did Adjudication officer will take evidence in relation to preliminary points raised from both parties and then proceed to hear the substantive claims.

The respondent submits that this case is one of a minority of cases in which firms to the party is required the preliminary issue to be determined before proceeding to hear of the substantive matter and submitted n various decisions of the Labour Court support of this.

In general, a decision on preliminary issues will be reserved, and the hearing will proceed to a full hearing of the issues on the same day.

This is for the convenience of the parties and to save a second day’s attendance at the WRC.

The respondent’s submission on this is set out above  and the use of the word ‘majority’ in respect of the number of cases referred to in the WRC Guidance note is important.

In this case the respondent indicated that it would have been calling four or five witnesses to give evidence.

To proceed to such a lengthy hearing in these circumstances would have been entirely unjustified given that the complainant raised no issue about the key dates; the date of the termination of his employment or the date of the referral of the complaint, which is part of the official WRC record in any case.

Therefore, on the basis of the balance of convenience to the parties I adjourned the hearing to determine the preliminary point which I now do.

I find that the complaint has not been made within the statutory time limits and it is therefore not within jurisdiction.

Complaint CA-00044931-001 has not been made within the statutory time limits and it is therefore not well-founded.

Time Limits, jurisdiction