Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mr Miguel Luigi  Freitas

One Complete Solution OCS

Representatives

 Mr Rodrigo Silva

Adrian Norton IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00059648-001

05/08/2023

The Complainant works for a security company called OCS Limited. He alleges that on or about the 8th of July 2022 he was discriminated against by an employee of Irish Rail. He is not an agency worker.  The Respondent stated that the matter is not properly before this tribunal as it is statute barred. The alleged act of discrimination occurred the 8th of July 2022, and the complaint was lodged with the Commission on the 5th of August 2023 , which is more than 12 months after the date of contravention. The Act does not provide for an extension of time past 12 months.

The Complainant stated that he was not aware of the time limits. He only became aware of a statutory remedy about 12 months after the incident.

The complaint is statute barred as it was lodged with the Commission out of time.

Section 77 of the Act states:

(5) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.

(b) On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission] or Circuit Court, as the case may be, 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.

As the alleged date of discrimination was the 8th of July 2022, and the complaint was lodged with the Commission on the 5th of August 2023 that the complaint is out of time.

These are legal technical terms and as explained Delaney and McGrath on Civil Procedure 4th Edition 2018 mean:

The meaning of the words “frivolous or vexatious” as used in the context of s.10(1)(b)(ii) of the Data Protection Act 1988 as amended was considered by Birmingham J in Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner,28 where he stated that “frivolous, in this context does not mean only foolish or silly, but rather a complaint that was futile, or misconceived or hopeless in the sense that it was incapable of achieving the desired outcome.” This description was referred to by Irvine J in her judgment in the Court of Appeal in Fox v McDonald,29 where she stated that “the word ‘frivolous’ when used in the context of O. 19 r, 28 is usually deployed to describe proceedings which the court feels compelled to terminate because their continued existence cannot be justified having regard to the relevant circumstance.”

As I have formed the view that the complaint before me is misconceived, I dismiss the complaint

The complaint is statute barred as it has been lodged with the Commission outside of the required 12-month timeframe. Therefore, the matter before me is misconceived as I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Pursuant to section 77 (5) I dismiss the complaint. I must determine that the Complainant was not discriminated against.

Out of Time