Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kieran  Smyth

Blanchardstown Transport Ltd

Representatives

Anna Rosa Raso ESA Consultants

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00046600-001

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00046600-002

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00046600-003

08/10/2021

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

CA-00046600-004

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00046600-005

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00046600-006

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00046600-007

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00046600-008

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00046600-009

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00046600-010

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00046600-011

08/10/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00046600-012

08/10/2021

The Complainant began his employment with the Respondent in September 2017 as a Night Supervisor and was paid €1,000 per week.

The Respondent raised a preliminary issue which it alleged go to the WRC’s jurisdiction to hear these complaints given that they are time-barred.

The Complainant accepted that the complaints were submitted out of time but stated that he wanted to highlight the appalling treatment that he was subjected to by the Respondent which he proceeded to do at the hearing.

The Respondent stated that I did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints because they were submitted outside of the statutory timeframes.

CA-00046600-001 - CA-00046600-003 and CA-00046600-006 - CA-00046600-012:

The Law

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 states: -

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

and

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

Preliminary Findings:

In Brothers of Charity (Roscommon) Ltd. v. Marian Keigher EDA1014, the Labour Court considered the determination of an issue by way of preliminary decision. The Labour Court referred to the judgments of Kenny J. in Tara Explorations and Development Co. Ltd v. Minister for Industry and Commerce [1975] IR 242; and Hardiman J. in B.T.F. v. Director of Public Prosecutions 2 ILRM 367 (the “B.T.F. Case”). In the latter case Hardiman J, found:

"It is often a difficult and delicate decision as to whether to try a particular issue as a preliminary matter. In a case where a point is raised which in and of itself and without regard to anything else may terminate the whole proceedings, clearly a strong case can be made for its trial as a preliminary issue. The classic example is where the Statute of Limitations is pleaded.”

As the Complainant’s employment ended on 6 October 2020 and these complaints were not submitted to the WRC until 8 October 2021, more than 12 months later, I do not have jurisdiction to hear these complaints as they are statue barred, according to the legislation set out above.

CA-00046600-004:

Section 8(2) of the 1977 Act provides:

“(2) A claim for redress under this Act shall be initiated by giving a notice in writing containing such particulars (if any) as may be specified in regulations under subsection (17) of section 41 of the Act of 2015 the Director General —

(a) within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal, or             

(b) within such period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the relevant dismissal as        the adjudication officer considers appropriate, in circumstances where the adjudication officer is satisfied that the giving of the notice within the period referred to in paragraph (a) was prevented due to reasonable cause,

and a copy of the notice shall be given by the Director General to the employer concerned as soon as may be after the receipt of the notice by the Director General.”

Preliminary Findings:

In Brothers of Charity (Roscommon) Ltd. v. Marian Keigher EDA1014, the Labour Court considered the determination of an issue by way of preliminary decision. The Labour Court referred to the judgments of Kenny J. in Tara Explorations and Development Co. Ltd v. Minister for Industry and Commerce [1975] IR 242; and Hardiman J. in B.T.F. v. Director of Public Prosecutions 2 ILRM 367 (the “B.T.F. Case”). In the latter case Hardiman J, found:

"It is often a difficult and delicate decision as to whether to try a particular issue as a preliminary matter. In a case where a point is raised which in and of itself and without regard to anything else may terminate the whole proceedings, clearly a strong case can be made for its trial as a preliminary issue. The classic example is where the Statute of Limitations is pleaded.”

As the Complainant’s employment ended on 6 October 2020 and the complaint of unfair dismissal was not submitted to the WRC until 8 October 2021, more than 12 months later, I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint as it is statue barred, according to the legislation set out above.

CA-00046600-001 - CA-00046600-003:

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear these complaints for the reasons set out above.

CA-00046600-004:

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint for the reasons set out above.

CA-00046600-005:

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00046600-006 - CA-00046600-012:

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear these complaints for the reasons set out above.