Complainant

Respondent

Parties

William  Slevin

Carryout Ballinasloe

Representatives

Self-Represented

Gearoid Geraghty and Company, Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00046846-001

22/10/2021

Th Complainant has alleged that he was refused service on the grounds of disability on 29th January 2021. The Complainant notified the Respondent of the nature of this allegation on 19th March 2021. Evidently unhappy with the response received from the Respondent in this regard, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission on 22nd October 2021.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 9th August 2022. 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.

Prior to the hearing, an issue as to the Complainant’s jurisdiction to being the present complaint was raised. As this issue is potentially determinative of the entire matter, it will be considered in advance of the substantive complaint.

The Complainant accepted that the complaint was received in excess of six months in advance of the alleged date of contravention. On foot of the same, he requested that the relevant time period of the referral of such complaints be extended.

The Complainant stated that he was mistaken as to the correct time frame for the referral of such a complaint. The Complainant further submitted that he found the process of submitting the complaint to be quite stressful and as a consequence of the same, he waited until what he understood to be the last moment to refer the complaint.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not established “reasonable cause” as required by the legislation. In particular, they submitted that a mistake as to a Complainant’s legal entitlements cannot ground such an application.

Section 21(6)(a) of the Equal Status Act provides that,

“Subject to subsections (3)(a)(ii) and (7), a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”

Subsection (B) goes on to provide that,

“On application by a complainant the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.”

By submission, the Complainant stated that he failed to refer the complaint within the six-month period as he made an error in relation to the same.

In the matter of Minister for Finance v Civil and Public Services Union and Others [2007] 18 ELR 36, Laffoy J. held that,

“…under the established jurisprudence in this jurisdiction lack of knowledge or awareness on the part of the claimant, or the absence of a legal precedent which indicates, that as a matter of law, a claim will have a successful outcome does not prevent a statutory limitation period from starting to run.”

In the matter of Globe Technical Services Limited and Kristin Miller (UD/17/177), the Labour Court held that,

“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 the present case, the alleged prohibited conduct occurred on 31st January 2021. This was a single incident with no further allegations arising against the Respondent thereafter. It is further apparent that the Respondent did not seek to mislead the Complainant in any manner regarding their response to the Complainant in respect of the issues at hand. The simple matter is, as accepted by the Complainant, that he made an error in computing the correct timeline for the referral of the present complaint. While I have some sympathy for the Complainant in this regard, being a lay-litigant, the authorities and the legal principle involved are unambiguous.

Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the complaint was referred in excess of six months following the allegation of prohibited conduct. In circumstances whereby the Complainant has failed to establish reasonable cause for the extension of the time limit, I find that his complaint is not well-founded.

I find that the complaint was referred in excess of six months following the allegation of prohibited conduct. In circumstances whereby the Complainant has failed to establish reasonable cause for the extension of the time limit, I find that the Respondent has not engaged in prohibited conduct within the definition of the Act.

Time Limit, Delay