ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057839
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gerard Mooney | St Patrick's University Hospital |
Representatives |
| Barry Walsh and Laura Gannon Fieldfisher Solicitors |
Complaint:
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-00070213-001 | 14/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
The Complainant has asserted that he was penalised for having made a complaint (or threatening to make a complaint) against his employer concerning a contravention of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.
Section 6C of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 provides that an employee may not be penalised for exercising or having proposed to exercise a right under that Act or having given evidence or having proposed to give evidence in any proceedings under the Act.
A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section….. 6C, …… shall do one or more of the following, namely—
(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,
(e) in relation to a complaint of a contravention under section 6C…. order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
I informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is potential for a serious and/or direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint, then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate and in order that matters might progress. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.
The Specific Details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 14th of March. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended in person. The Complainant has not been in the employment of the Respondent since his retirement in 2020. The Complainant has had an ongoing issue with the Respondent concerning his pension calculations and this issue has been at the heart of his ongoing grievance against the employer for some five years now. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant has an issue though rejects that there is anything untoward in any steps taken. The Respondent has urged that I disqualify myself from dealing with any substantive matter in circumstances where the Complainant is manifestly out of time. I have been asked to deal with the timing issue as a preliminary matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have explained to the Complainant that when a workplace relations complaint form issues I am primarily asked to consider the six-month period immediately prior to the issuing of the complaint form for evidence of a contravention, act of penalisation, or act of discrimination. My jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the substantive matter is usually predicated on the need to find a cause of action in that time span. Regrettably the Complainant has had no contractual employment relationship with the Respondent entity for at least five years. It is therefore not possible for the Respondent to have acted in contravention of a relationship which no longer exists. The Complaint herein fails for want of jurisdiction. By way of an aside I do not believe that there was ever a complaint made under the 1994 Act nor yet was there any suggestion of a penalisation arising therefrom. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00070213-001 – The complaint herein is not well founded and fails in circumstances where the Complainant is out of time for making a complaint. |
Dated: 21-08-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|