PWD2445

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00045646 (CA-00056380-001)

BACKGROUND:

This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.  The appeal was heard by the Labour Court in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.   

The following is the Court's Decision:

DECISION:

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by Aidan Best (the Appellant) against the decision of an Adjudication Officer in his complaint against UR Insurances T/a Actual Insurances (the Respondent) made under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (the Act).

The Adjudication Officer decided that the complaint of the Appellant was not well founded.

The appeal

The within appeal was received by the Court on 7th March 2024. The decision of the Adjudication Officer was made on 25th January 2024. An appeal of a decision of an Adjudication Officer would, if it were to have been made in time having regard to the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 (the Act of 2015) at Section 44(3), require to have been made to the Court no later than 6th March 2024.

The Act at Section 44(3) and 44(4) makes provision as follows:

44(3) Subject to subsection (4), a notice under subsection (2) shall be given to the Labour Court not later than 42 days from the date of the decision concerned.

(4) The Labour Court may direct that a notice under subsection (2) may be given to it after the expiration of the period specified in subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the notice was not so given before such expiration due to the existence of exceptional circumstances.

Having received the within appeal from the Appellant outside the time limit of 42 days set out in the Act of 2015, the Court, on 8th March 2024, wrote to the Appellant in relevant part in the following terms:

“The decision in this case was made on 25 /01/2024 and notification of an appeal should have been given on or before 6th March 2024.

The Court notes that you indicated on the appeal form that you intend to apply for an extension of time to appeal in accordance with Section 44(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.

The grounds for such an extension need to be included in your submission which will be requested once a hearing date has been set for the matter. An Officer of the Court will advise you in writing as soon as possible of the hearing date.”

On the same date, the Court wrote to the Respondent in relevant part as follows:

“The decision in this case was made on 25 /01/2024 and notification of an appeal should have been given on or before 6th March 2024.

The Court notes that the Appellant indicated on the appeal form that they intend to apply for an extension of time to appeal in accordance with Section 44(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.

The Appellant has been requested to include the grounds for such an extension in their submission which will be requested once a hearing date has been set for the matter.”

In the event, the written submission of the Appellant was received by the Court on 17th June 2024. The written submission of the Respondent was received on the same date. Neither submission contained any detail or reference to an application for an extension of time or the matter of time limits at all.

The Appellant was legally represented before the Court. The Respondent was not legally represented at the hearing.

At the outset of its hearing, the Court reminded the parties of its correspondence of 8th March 2024 and reminded them both that no reference to an application for an extension of time was made in the written submissions of the parties received by the Court in advance of the hearing.

The Court enquired whether it was to take it that the parties were satisfied for the Court to decide the matter of time limits without the benefit of any submission on the matter of time limits from the parties.

Both parties stated that they were so satisfied.

The Court clarified that this matter of time had the potential to dispose of the appeal in its entirety.

Both parties confirmed to the Court that they understood that. Neither party made nor sought to make an oral submission to the Court on the matter of applicable time limits.

Submissions of the parries.

The parties made submissions to the Court on the substance of the complaint before the Court. The worker submitted that a deduction had been made from his wages on his final date of receipt of wages and that this deduction amounted to €2019.27. The Appellant submitted that this deduction was unlawful having regards to the provisions of the Act. The Appellant gave sworn evidence to the Court in support of his complaint.

The Respondent submitted that the deduction of €2019.27 had been made on the date as alleged but contended that it had been a deduction in respect of a previous overpayment. The Respondent chose not tender sworn evidence to the Court at the hearing.

Discussion and conclusions.

The appeal before the Court was not made within the statutory time limit of 42 days from the date of decision of the Adjudication Officer. The Appellant has made no submission to this Court which would allow consideration of whether the failure to give notice of appeal within the statutory limits applicable was due to the existence of exceptional circumstances.

That being the case, it is not permissible for the Court to direct that the notice may be given to it after the expiration of the period of 42 days set out in the Act of 2015 on the basis of the Court being satisfied that the notice was not so given due to the existence of exceptional circumstances.

Having reached that conclusion, the Court must conclude that the within appeal has been made out of time and must, as a consequence, fail.

Decision

The within appeal has been made outside of the applicable time limits and must consequently fail. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
SOC	______________________
8th July 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sinéad O'Connor, Court Secretary.