Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Adorjan  Gimesi

Village At Lyons

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

Barry O’Mahony B.L., instructed by ARAG Legal Protection

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00061308-001

30/01/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The compliant undertook to give his evidence under oath.  Three witnesses for the complainant and three witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation.

As a preliminary matter, the respondent submitted that the matter was outside of the timeframe permitted under the Act.

The respondent submitted that the complainant submitted his resignation on 4 July 2023 indicating that it should take his sick leave and holiday pay as his notice. The respondent submitted that the complainant subsequently lodged sick certificate that expired on 28 July 2023. The respondent paid any outstanding monies to the complainant on 28 July 2023. The respondent noted that from its perspective this was the date of the termination of his employment. The respondent noted that the complainant complaint form to the WRC was made outside six-month time frame on 30 January 2024.

The respondent noted that the complainant has not sought an extension of that time frame and notwithstanding this that as he had already taken a complaint to the WRC, he was already aware of the time limits involved in taking a complaint.

The complainant stated that he submitted his resignation on 4 July 2023 and asked for the holiday and sick leave to be taken into account in respect of his notice.

The complainant lodged his complaint outside the six-month timeframe permitted under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – 2015.  Section 8(2) of the Act states as follows:

(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) to 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.

The complainant did not provide any cause as to why he was prevented from submitting the complaint on time, reasonable or otherwise. There was some discussion as to what amounted to payment in lieu of notice and the adjudicator made reference to the recent Labour Court decision UDD2413 in the case of Fyffes Tropical Ltd v Osman, wherein the Labour Court decided that the date upon which payment is made in lieu of notice constitutes is the date of termination of the employment.

It was also mentioned by the respondent that the complainant was able to submit other complaints the WRC within time in relation to matters elsewhere decided and as such there was no reasonable circumstance that prevented him from submitting the complaint.

The complaint did not submit evidence as to how he was prevented from making his complaint within the time frame comprehended by the Act.

In the present circumstances I am satisfied that the date of termination of the employment is the 28 July 2023 and as no reasonable cause has been submitted to show why the complainant was prevented from making the complaint in time, I find that the complaint was made out of time.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that this complaint was submitted outside the timeframe comprehended by the Act.

Unfair dismissal – S. 8(2) time limit for submission of complaints – compliant submitted outside timeframe.