PWD2515

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00049778 (CA-00060984-001)

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:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Mr Tomás English (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00049778/CA-00060984-001, dated 12 August 2024) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991(‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer decided that the claim was “out of time and not well-founded”. Notice of the Appeal was received in the Court on 18 September 2024. The Court heard the appeal in Waterford on 12 March 2025.

Preliminary Issue

At the outset of the within hearing, Mr Paul Gough, Solicitor for Respond (‘the Respondent’) submitted that the Complainant’s claim was time barred having regard to section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and the High Court judgment in HSE v McDermott [2014] IEHC 331. The Complainant submitted that his claim should not be found to be time barred as he referred it to the Workplace Relations Commission promptly having exhausted the Respondent’s internal procedures.

The Law

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

“(6) 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.”

The issue of the time limits applicable to claims under the Act of 1991 was considered in some detail by the High Court in HSE v McDermott [2014] IEHC 331. That case pre-dated the enactment of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. However, the time limits originally provided for in section 6(4) of the Act of 1991 as enacted are replicated in section 41(6) of the Act of 2015.

At paragraphs 14 to 16 of his judgment, Hogan J states:

“14. Yet the relevant statutory language takes us somewhat further, because the key question is the “date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” In other words, time runs for the purposes of the Act not from the date of any particular contravention or even the date of the first contravention, but rather from the date of the contravention “to which the complaint relates.” As the EAT pointed out in its ruling on the matter, had the Oireachtas intended that time was to run from the date of the first contravention, it could easily have so provided.

15. For the purposes of this limitation period, everything turns, accordingly, on the manner in which the complaint is framed by the employee. If, for example, the employer has been unlawfully making deductions for a three year period, then provided that the complaint which has been presented relates to a period of six months beginning “on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”, the complaint will nonetheless be in time.

16. It follows, therefore, that if an employer has been making deduction X from the monthly salary of the employee since January 2010, a complaint which relates to deductions made from January, 2014 onwards and which is presented to the Rights Commissioner in June, 2014 will still be in time for the purposes of s. 6(4). If, on the other hand, the complaint were to have been framed in a different manner, such that it related to the period from January, 2010 onwards, it would then have been out of time.”

Discussion and Decision

It is common case that the within claim relates to historic time-in-lieu which the Complainant submits he accrued beginning circa 2020.

The complaint under the Act was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 14 January 2024. It follows, therefore, that the period comprehended by the complaint is 15 July 2023 to 14 January 2024. Having regard to the dicta of Hogan J referred to earlier, the Court finds that the complaint is statute barred. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AR	______________________
4th April 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.