HSD2511

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00048692 (CA-00059781-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Complainant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 29(1) of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Acts, 2005 to 2014.  A Labour Court hearing took place on 17 April 2025.  

the following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

This is an appeal against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer (number ADJ-00048692, CA-00059781-001), under the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 (the Act).

The complaint was lodged to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 3 November 2023. The Adjudication Officer determined she had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the complaint as it was submitted outside the time limits prescribed in the Act.

That decision was appealed to the Court. The Labour Court hearing was held in Dublin on 17 April 2025. This appeal is link to four other appeals EDA2546, EDA2547, EDA2548, and HSD2512 that were heard on the same day.

Preliminary Matter – Time Limits

The Respondent raised a preliminary matter in relation to the time limits under the Act for lodging a complaint. As the matter of time limits goes to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal it decided to hear from the parties on that preliminary matter in the first instance. 

Position of the Respondent

The Appellant’s contract of employment terminated in May 2019. The Appellant is in receipt of a pension since that date. No employment relationship exists.

The relevant period for lodging any complaint under the Act runs from 20 May 2019 (the date of termination of employment) to 19 November 2019. Any claim filed after that date is outside the statutory cognisable six-month period for lodging a complaint. The complaint is manifestly out of time and so statute barred.

Position of the Appellant

No time limit arises due to misrepresentation by the Respondent. The Respondent relies on the purported termination of the Appellant’s employment to say no employment relationship exists. Payslips show that the Appellant has received a monthly payment since May 2019 which clearly contradicts the assertion that the contract of employment terminated on 20 May 2019. The Appellant is not in receipt of an authorised pension payment. A pension payment can only be made where a Statutory Declaration Form was signed. The Appellant did not sign a document to authorise any changes to her terms and conditions of employment. 

The complaint is not out of time. There is no delay in lodging the complaint under the Act, as the employment relationship continues.

Relevant Law

Section 41(6) and 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, sets out the time limits for lodging complaints under various enactments, including the Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act 2005, 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.”

“(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

Penalisation

Section 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005, provides as follows

“(1) In this section “penalisation” includes any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects, to his or her detriment, an employee with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment.”

Deliberations and Findings

Rule 54 of the Labour Court Rules 2024 provides that: -

“The Court may, in its discretion, give a preliminary ruling on any aspect of the case where it is satisfied that time and expense may be saved by the giving of such a ruling and/or where it has the potential to be determinative of the case”.

The complaint under the Act was lodged to the Workplace Relations Commission on 3 November 2023 which means the relevant statutory period for consideration of any complaint, having regard to Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, is the period from 4 May 2023 to 3 November 2023. 

The Respondent submits that the complaint is manifestly out of time as the Appellant’s contract of employment with the Respondent terminated in May 2019. It contends that the Appellant is in receipt of a pension since that date and no employment relationship exists to ground a complaint under the Act.

The Appellant asserts that the Respondent is misrepresenting facts to rely on a purported termination of the employment contract. She refutes that the employment relationship ever ended and contends that she is not in receipt of a valid pension, as no Statutory Declaration Form was signed, and she did not sign a document to authorise any changes to her terms and conditions of employment. 

The payslip relied upon by the Appellant to contradict the Respondent’s assertion that her contract of employment with the Respondent terminated was opened to the Court.

The relevant payslip was dated 30 June 2023, and the pay element described as “PENSION”. The Appellant contends that the payment is not a valid pension. In reply to questions from the Court, the Appellant accepted that similar “PENSION” payments have transferred into her account on a monthly basis since 2019. Furthermore, she stated that she received a letter to say that her employment terminated in May 2019 and in September 2019 received 3 months back dated pension payments.

The Court finds that by her own submission, the Appellant received a letter to say that her employment terminated in May 2019 and has been receiving monthly “pension” payments since that time.

It is clear, having regard to the submissions made by both parties, that the employment relationship between the parties ceased in 2019 when the Appellant commenced receipt of a pension. While the Appellant may take issue with whether the pension she receives is an authorised pension, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider that matter.

In all the circumstances of this case, the Court is satisfied that the employment relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent terminated on 20 May 2019. That being the case, the Appellant does not have locus standi to bring a claim under the 2005 Act and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Act.

The Court’s jurisdiction is confined to assessing breaches that occurred within the time limits specified under the Act. The maximum time limit allowed for an employee to bring a complaint under the Act is six months from the date of the alleged contravention. The six-month timeframe may be extended to 12 months if there is reasonable cause.

The within complaint was lodged to the Workplace Relations Commission on 3 November 2023, some three years and five months after the employment relationship between the parties ended. Having regard to the time limits set down at Section 41(6) and 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, the complaint is manifestly out of time. As a result, the complaint is statute barred.

Decision

The complaint is statute barred.

The appeal is not allowed.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AR	______________________
7th May 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.