ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049290
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Laura Jaymie Doyle | National Learning Network Athone |
Representatives |
| Daire Ferguson Ibec |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00060396-003 | 04/12/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
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. At the start of the hearing the complainant confirmed twice that she wanted to pursue an Equal status complaint rather than an Employment Equality complaint. The complainant confirmed that her complaint related to a period between 2021 and August 2022. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant confirmed that her complaint related to a period between 2021 and August 2022. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent denied treating the complainant contrary to the provisions of the Act. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant confirmed that her complaint related to a period between 2021 and August 2022. She lodged her complaint on 4 December 2023. Section 21(6)& (7) of the Act deal with the timeframes for lodging complaints with the WRC. The sections state: (6) (a) Subject to subsections (3)(a)(ii) and (7), a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct 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 of the Workplace Relations Commissioner, as the case may be, the Circuit Court 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. (7) Where a delay by a complainant in referring a case under this Act is due to any misrepresentation by the respondent, subsection (6)(a) shall apply as if the references to the date of occurrence of prohibited conduct were references to the date on which the misrepresentation came to the complainant’s notice. The compliant was submitted outside the timeframe notwithstanding the provisions of Section 21(6)(b). There was no allegation of misrepresentation put forward either. Accordingly, I find that the complaint has been lodged outside of the timeframes comprehended by the Act. |
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.
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint was lodged outside the timeframe comprehended by the Act. |
Dated: 11-02-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Equal Status Act – complaint out of time |