ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00046515

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  16/11/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint  and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant contends that she was penalised for making protected disclosures over a number of years when in the employment of the Respondent.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant outlined the history in relation to her employment with the Respondent. 

She stated that from November 2018 there had been ongoing issues in the employment which led to her having “a target on her back”. Issues she highlighted were ignored but a false complaint against her was taken very seriously and she was put through a suspension and flawed lengthy investigation.  At a meeting with management in March 2021 she highlighted how she felt victimised by other staff. She highlighted wrongdoings that should have been treated as Protected Disclosures and she should have received the full protection involved in accordance with the legislation. Employees engaged in a witch hunt against her shortly after. Ironically cited as a Protected Disclosure, a new employee submitted a complaint which could neither be verified or collaborated by witnesses and should have failed at the preliminary screening.  When she was exonerated and none of those that had led a campaign against her were disciplined. This finalised her employment as regardless of truth, the company refused to show any integrity.  

She stated that in September 2021 she was removed from her position on foot of a complaint made wrongly as a protected disclosure.  At that meeting she advised her manager of a number of protected disclosures she had made and that she had been penalised.  The Complainant stated that she was making this complaint late as she was not informed by her Union Representative that she could lodge such a complaint.   

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent submitted that the complaint is out of time and should be dismissed.

It stated that the claim is excessively out of time.

All the dates which the claimant deemed relevant are very significantly outside the relevant 6-month period back to 28/12/2022. They are also outside a 12-month period back to 28/06/2022. The claim was submitted 94 weeks after the Claimant was last in the workplace.  The claimant has misused, or vexatiously used, the WRC process for a claim which is so long out of time it cannot be entertained, and this mis-diversion of finite WRC resources detracts from the resources available for valid cases.

The claimant not being aware of the legislation when she lodged her original complaint is not a reasonable cause.

Findings and Conclusions:

The applicable law

Section 12 (1) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (as amended) provides:

12. (1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, or cause or permit any other person to penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, for having made a protected disclosure.

Time Limits

Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

“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.

Section 41 (8) provides:

“an adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after 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”.

The complaint was received on 29th June 2023.  The latest time period therefore encompassed is from 29th June 2022.

The Complainant contends that she made protected disclosures from an early stage in her employment and from at least 2019.  The alleged act of penalisation occurred in September 2021 when she was removed from her position and placed on suspension.  

While no dates or facts of the Complainant actually making protected disclosures were submitted, the alleged act of penalisation which occurred in September 2021 is clearly outside the time limits provided for in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.  I therefore cannot accept jurisdiction and I find the complaint to be not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have decided that the complaint is out of time and is not well founded.

Dated: 9th January, 2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: