ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044169
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | James Burgess | Tata Consultancy Services Ireland Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | The complainant represented himself | Terry MacNamara |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00054795-001 | 31/01/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act , 1991 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 is employed as a Senior Process Executive with the Company since 2015. He submitted the respondent was in breach of the Act for paying him a lower bonus than he was due when he was placed in an incorrect performance band. He asserted that the documentation submitted by him proves that he was incorrectly placed in Performance Band C when he should have been placed in Band B – resulting in the payment of 5% bonus instead of 7.5% of annual salary. In a submission furnished to the WRC on the 9th.March 2023, the complainant submitted a screen shot and submitted that the allocated Performance Band B (Performance Band C – should be Performance B) led to his being remunerated with a lower bonus and a lower pay rise than he had earned.
The complainant asked that the 6 months time limit for referring the complaint to the WRC be extended on the basis of reasonable cause – the complainant asserted that he had repeatedly been reassured that his complaint was being processed but ultimately the complaint had been ignored. The complainant further argued that he had had no previous involvement with the WRC and was consequently unaware of the 6 month deadline for the making of complaints.
The respondent rejected the complaint and asserted that there was no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint as it was out of time. The respondent asserted that the complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on the 31st.Jan. 2023 indicating that he was paid less than the amount due to him on the 28th.Jun.2022.The respondent submitted that the cognisable period having regard to the 6 month time limit under the Act was the 1st.August 2022 to the 31st.Jan.2023.It was contended that as the alleged contravention took place on the 28th.June 2022 the complaint was out of time. It was submitted that the complainant’s explanations for the delay in meeting the 6 month deadline did not constitute reasonable cause as provided for in the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
The respondent’s representative referenced the complainant’s assertions that he was repeatedly reassured that his internal complaint about the matter would be processed. It was submitted that the complainant was informed on numerous occasions that his complaint had not been properly logged on the IT Speed system and that this was evident from the ensuing emails between the parties. It was submitted that there was no discretion under the Act for an Adjudication Officer to extend the time limit unless reasonable cause was invoked. The provisions of DWT0338 Cementation Skansa were invoked in support of this position with particular emphasis being placed on the Labour Court’s reliance on the High Court Case O’Donnell v Dun Laoghaire Corporation [1991]ILRM 30 where Costello J held “The phrase ‘good reason’ is one of wide import which it would be futile to attempt to define precisely .However, in considering whether or not there are good reasons for extending the time I think it is clear that the test must be an objective one and the Court should not extend the time merely because an aggrieved plaintiff believed he/she was justified in delaying the institution of proceedings. What the plaintiff has to show (and I think the onus is on the plaintiff) is that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford a justifiable excuse for the delay”
|
Preliminary Matter of Jurisdiction
I have reviewed the presentations and submissions of the parties with respect to the time limits. I do not accept the complainant’s contention that his disagreement / dispute was ignored as he was on notice from the 8th.June that his disagreement/dispute had not been recorded by the system. Additionally, I cannot accept that ignorance of the law justifies the delay in making the complaint. I find that the complainant has failed to meet the test of reasonable cause as set out by the Labour Court in DWT0338 Cementation Skansa v Carroll. The complainant has failed to offer a compelling explanation for the delay in submitting the complaint. Accordingly, I must conclude that the complaint is out of time and I have no jurisdiction to investigate the substantive matter. |
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 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
The complaint is out of time and consequently I have no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint. |
Dated: 12th October 2023.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Key Words:
|