ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037693
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Paul Dusa | Masterlink Logistics |
Representatives | Catherine Fitzsimons-Belgaid of Fresh Thinking HRM | Jennifer Murphy of Carley and Connellan Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00049031-002 | 07/03/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00049031-003 | 07/03/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 | CA-00049031-004 | 07/03/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00049031-005 | 07/03/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant was an agency worker assigned to the Respondent by a recruitment agency from the 29th of March 2021 until the 26th of May 2021. On the 26th of May 2021 the Complainant was sent away from the Respondent’s warehouse by the general manager of the warehouse.
The General Manager of the warehouse the complainant worked at, Chris Conway, attended on behalf of the Respondent. They were represented by Jennifer Murphy Solicitor. Mr Conway gave evidence under affirmation.
The Complainant Paul Dusa attended the hearing represented by Catherine Fitzsimons-Belgaid. Mr Dusa gave evidence under oath.
The Complainant has brought identical complaints against both the Respondent and the recruitment agency. Complaints were brought against the recruitment agency and the Respondent at different dates but were subsequently joined.
The Complainant issued complaints addressed to the Respondent on 7th of March 2022, some 9 months and 9 days after the complainant ceased working for the Respondent.
On review of the legislation each complaint relates to, a complaint must be brought within 6 months of the alleged breach having occurred. If a complaint is brought outside of that statutory timeframe then it outside my jurisdiction. The relevant legislation allows this time frame to be extended up to 12 months following reasonable cause for the delay having been proven.
The Complainant’s representative submits that the main reason for delay was the Respondent’s failure to engage with the Complainant and provide a clear basis for their being let go. They submitted that the Complainant was proactively seeking to engage with them but had had no response.
The Complainant under cross examination later gave a different reason which was that he believed he had brought a complaint against the Respondent when he had brought a complaint against the recruitment agency. The complaint brought against the recruitment agency was brought on 19th of November 2021 and is in time.
The Respondent’s solicitor submitted that the Complainant has established no clear basis for a reasonable cause for delay, she specifically cited Skelly v DCC where the Labour Court concluded that exhausting an alternative means of resolving their dispute does not constitute reasonable cause for the delay.
I reviewed the Complainant’s complaint form submitted against the agency. The narrative boxes in this form do include some allegations concerning the Respondent and its staff however the form clearly identifies the recruitment agency as the respondent for the purposes of that complaint. I note that the Complainant was represented at the time and assisted in bringing these complaints. I further note that the Complainant submitted a second form explicitly identifying the Respondent as the respondent for the purposes of his complaint. This second form was submitted well out of time.
With regard to the above circumstances I am not satisfied that the complainant has established reasonable cause for the delay in making these complaints. I am satisfied that the complaints submitted on 19th November 2021 were made against the recruitment agency and not the Respondent. As such the complaints against the Respondent must fail and I can consider them no further.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
As outlined above |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As outlined above. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The above complaints were submitted 9 months and 9 days after the Complainant ceased working at the Respondent’s warehouse. The complainant has failed to establish reasonable cause for the delay in making these complaints. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00049031-002 I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00049031-003 I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00049031-004 I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00049031-005 I find that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 18/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
Time Limit |