PWD256

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00048994

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 Determination:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Complainant against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer ADJ-00048994, CA-00042974-001 dated 14 February 2024 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Notice of Appeal was received on 25 September 2024, which was outside the 42-day period for bringing an appeal provided for in section 44(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (‘the Act’).  As the Adjudication Officer decision is dated 14 February 2024, in order for the appeal to have been submitted within the statutory timeframe the appeal would have to have been received by the Labour Court no later than the 26 March 2024.

The Applicant sought an extension of time to bring the appeal on the grounds that there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ at play which prevented him bringing the appeals within the statutory time period. The Complainant stated that he had referred the issue to the Ombudsman when he received the Adjudication Officers decision, but the Ombudsman had indicated it was not appropriate to them. He presumed he could not appeal to the Court while the issue was with the Ombudsman. The Complainant accepted that making a submission to the Ombudsman did not prevent him for lodging an appeal to the Labour Court.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not identified exceptional circumstances and the fact that he resumed he could not do it was not a defence he could rely on.

Discussion

In Joyce Fitzsimons-Markey v Gaelscoil Thulach na nOg [2004] ELR 110 this Court gave extensive consideration to the meaning of the expression "exceptional circumstances". In that case the Court stated as follows:

“The question for determination in this case is whether the applicant was prevented by exceptional circumstances from bringing her claim within the time limit prescribed by Section 77(6) of the Act.  That is pre-eminently a question of fact and degree. Each case must be decided on its own circumstances and the improbability of any two cases falling under the same set of circumstances makes it unlikely that the decision in any one case can be more than a rough guide to the decision in another.”

The Court went on to state

“The Court must first consider if the circumstances relied upon by the applicant can be regarded as exceptional. If it answers that question in the affirmative the Court must then go on to consider if those circumstances operated so as to prevent the applicant from lodging her claim in time.”

The burden of proof in establishing the existence of exceptional circumstances rests with the Complainant. To discharge that burden the Complainant must present clear and cogent evidence to support the contention that exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Section 44(4) of the Act of 2015 exist.

In the within case the circumstances that existed was a presumption by the Complainant that he could not appeal to the Labour Court while engaging with the Ombudsman. The Court is not satisfied that these circumstances fall within the definition of exceptional circumstances and accordingly the Court determines that the application for an extension of time must fail.

Determination

In all of the circumstances the Court finds that the existence of exceptional circumstances has not been established and therefore the application for an extension of time must fail.

The Court so Determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CC	______________________
4th March 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.