ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053114
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Denise Gibbons | Danu Homecare -originally Anns Homecare |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self - Represented | Un-Represented |
Complaint:
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-00064889-001 | 20/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Oath / Affirmation was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
No issue regarding confidentiality arose.
Background:
The issue in contention was the alleged Unfair Dismissal of the Complainant, a Care Manager, by the Respondent, a Home Care Company. The employment began on the 16th October 2019 and ended on the 17th February 2022. The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €1,846 per fortnight for a 40-hour week. It was important to note the Complainant may have been the victim of misrepresentation by a Firm of HR Advisors. This is regrettable but Legal precedents clearly state that failure / mistakes by Legal or Other advisors cannot be relied upon to excuse procedural failures in making WRC complaints. |
Opening Legal Issues
The complaint was lodged with the WRC on the 20th July 2024 - some 16 months post the date of dismissal.
Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act,2015 requires all complaints to be lodged withing six months of a dismissal with the possibility of an appeal under Section 41(8) to an Adjudication Officer for an extension to 12 months for “reasonable” cause.
Regrettably for the Complainant in this case no extension beyond 12 months is Legally possible.
Accordingly, the Complaint cannot Legally proceed.
1: Findings and Conclusions:
The Complaint, following Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act,2015 is “out of time” and cannot proceed. |
2: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA-00064889-001
The complaint is Out of Time and cannot proceed.
The Complaint fails.
Dated: 24th of March 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Time Limits, Unfair Dismissal |