ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00045128

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Mihai Vlad Vizitiu	Darvari Mechanical Engineering Limited

Representatives

Marius Marosan

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00055427-001	07/03/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00055427-002	07/03/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015	CA-00055427-003	07/03/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00055427-004	07/03/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00055427-005	07/03/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00055427-006	07/03/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/11/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy

Procedure:

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

Background:

The Complainant was hired by the Respondent in April 2022 in Romania but carried out his work in Ireland. He resigned in August 2022 following issues regarding payment.

Initially he brought complaints in Romania where he believed his employer was based. The Romanian authorities clarified that they did not have jurisdiction. The Respondent has a sister company in Romania by the same name but the Complainant was not engaged via them.

The complaint form was submitted on the 7th of March 2023. Some 6 months and 7 days after his leaving the Respondent.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation.

The Complainant’s representative requested that I extend the time limits which are set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. A notification was sent to their registered address.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 states that 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.

Subsection 8 goes on to state that 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.

The position regarding the circumstances where I can allow an extension of time are well set out by Labour Court decisions.

In particular I am cognisant of the decision in Leech v Salesforce EDA1615 and the following excerpt from that decision.

the Court must be satisfied, as a matter of probability, that the complaint would have been presented the complaint in time if it were it not for the intervention of the factors relied upon as constituting reasonable cause. It is the actual delay that must be explained and justified. Hence, if the factors relied upon to explain the delay ceased to operate before the complaint was presented, that may undermine a claim that those factors were the actual cause of the delay.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he had initially thought he was an employee under a Romanian employment relationship and was delayed in submitting complaints due to the misrepresentation of his employer. However, it was also his evidence that the authorities in Romania wrote to him and outlined their lack of jurisdiction in September 2022.

In the circumstances the reason given by the Complainant cannot be the basis for an extension of the above time limits.

Decision:

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

CA-00055427-001