Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anderson  Khabaze De Abreu

Liberty Home Care Limited

Representatives

  In person

The HR Suite

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068613-001

14/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00068613-003

14/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068613-004

14/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068613-005

14/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068613-006

14/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068613-007

14/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00068613-008

14/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00068613-011

14/01/2025

The complainant has submitted eight complaints to the Adjudication Services of the Workplace Relations Commission as outlined above.

The respondent contends that the complaints are out of time. The respondent’s position is that the complainant resigned from his employment with effect from 17th May 2024. The complaints lodged by him on 14th January 2025 are submitted outside of the statutory six-month time limit.

The respondent’s position in respect of the request to extend time is that the complainant has not satisfied the appropriate legal test in establishing that there was reasonable cause for the delay in submitting his complaints. The respondent contends that the complaints are out of time and that no extension of time should be granted.

The complainant was given an opportunity to apply for an extension of time in relation to his complaints. The complainant, by email dated 10th October 2025, sought an extension of time in relation to the timing of his complaints. The complainant stated that he was unaware of the six-month statutory time limit in relation to submitting complaints to the WRC. He also stated that he was regularising his immigration status at the same time and that this process essentially delayed the referral of his complaints to the WRC within the statutory six-month timeframe.

The Applicable Law

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

(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 complaints were lodged to the Workplace Relations Commission on 14th January 2025. The cognisable period of the complaints is the six-month period immediately prior to the referral of the complaints. (15th July 2024 -14th January 2025). As the complainant resigned from his employment with effect from 17th May 2024, his complaints, as submitted, are outside that six-month period and are therefore out of time.

Application for an Extension of Time - Reasonable cause test

The test for establishing if reasonable cause is shown for the purpose of granting an extension of time is that formulated in Labour Court Determination No: DWT0338 –Cementation Skanska and Carroll which states as follows: -

“It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.

The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only a slight explanation whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons. Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case”.

I note the reasons put forward by the complainant in relation to not submitting a complaint to the WRC until 14th January 2025. Specifically, the complainant stated that he was unaware of the statutory time limits and that he was also regularising his immigration status at the same time. Having considered the issue, I find that the reasons put forward by the complainant do not both explain and offer an excuse for the late referral of the complaint. Accordingly, the complainant has not met the test as set out in Labour Court Determination No: DWT0338 Cementation Skanska v Caroll. Accordingly, I do not grant the extension of time.

Having considered the matter, I find that the complaints are out of time and are therefore statute barred.

Complaints out of time