AWD253

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00049753 (CA-00061013-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 20 December 2024

in accordance with the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 September 2025.

The following is the Decision of the Court:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Teagasc of a decision of an Adjudicator Officer under the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 (“The Acs”). Teagasc did not attend the hearing at first instance.

The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was well founded and awarded Mr. McInerney €15,000 in compensation.

Teagasc appealed that decision to the Labour Court. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 4 September 2025.

For ease of reference the parties are given the same designation as they had at first instance. Hence Noel McInerney is referred to as “the Complainant” and Teagasc is referred to as “the Respondent”.

1. Background

The Respondent operates several farms on research sites throughout Ireland. The Complainant was engaged by a registered employment agency as a temporary agency worker and provided farm relief services to the Respondent (“the hirer”) in the period from January 2015 to May 2023.

The Complainant applied for and was successful in securing a 12-week fixed-term contract of employment with the Respondent from 2 May 2023 to 21 July 2023.

After the 21 July 2023, the Complainant ceased to work for the Respondent.

2. Preliminary Matters

Three preliminary matters were raised at the outset of the hearing addressing the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Respondent submits that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the complaint was lodged to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) outside the statutory timeframe allowed. The Respondent further submits that it is not the correct respondent in this case.

The Complainant seeks an application for an extension of time.

3. Summary of the Respondent’s position

• (i) Time limits

The Respondent submits that the complaint to the WRC was submitted outside the allowed period of six months from the date of the alleged contravention of the Act.

The Complainant was employed directly by the Respondent from 2 May 2023 to 21 July 2023 on a fixed-term contract and, thereafter, did not return to work on the Respondent’s site. Therefore, the last date on which there could potentially have been a contravention of the Act was 1 May 2023. The complaint was submitted to the WRC on 10 January 2024, over 8 months after this date.

• (ii) Application for an extension of time

The Complainant has failed to show any “reasonable cause” for the delay in lodging his complaint.

The Complainant submitted a separate complaint in August 2023 in relation to the same matters citing FRS as the respondent in that case. Therefore, the Complainant does not have a reasonable cause for failing to submit the complaint the subject of this appeal within the allowed period.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant has not provided a reasonable cause for an extension of the six-month time limit. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint, and the Respondent’s appeal should be allowed.

• (iii) Proper Respondent

Without prejudice to the above, the Respondent submits is not the correct respondent in this case. It accepts that it was the hirer for the purposes of the Act prior to 1 May 2023, when the Complainant worked as a relief worker on the Respondent’s site.

There was no contract of employment between the Complainant and the Respondent prior to 1 May 2023. The Complainant was always an employee of the registered employment agency. and any complaint should be brought against the registered employment agency that provided farm relief services to the Respondent.

4. Summary of Complainant’s Case

The Complainant accepts that the Acts do not apply to the period between 2 May 2023 and 21 July 2023 as he was directly employed by the Respondent during this period and was not therefore an Agency worker.

The Complainant submits that there were ongoing breaches of the Acts during the cognisable period. On 17 July 2023 he emailed the Respondent to express concerns about the prospect of him resuming employment with the Agency on lesser terms and conditions and to seek direct employment with the Respondent. The Complainant states that the Respondent had an expectation that he would return to work on the site through employment with the Agency.

The Complainant was an Agency worker after 21 July 2023, when his 3-month employment contract with the Respondent ceased. He did not work on the Respondent’s site after that date, either directly with the Respondent or through the Agency. He did not take up any further agency assignments with the Agency again after he ceased employment with the Respondent on 21 July 2023.

The Complainant seeks an extension of time. He submitted an earlier complaint under the Acts against the Agency but was not aware that he had submitted erroneous employer identity details on the form. He has a learning difficulty, and this contributed to the error.

5. Relevant law

Time Limits

Section 41(6) and 41 (8) 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.”

“(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.”

Section 2the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 states as follows: -

“agency worker” means an individual employed by an employment agency under a contract of employment by virtue of which the individual may be assigned to work for, and under the direction and supervision of, a person other than the employment agency;

“employment agency” means a person (including a temporary work agency) engaged in an economic activity who employs an individual under a contract of employment by virtue of which the individual may be assigned to work for, and under the direction and supervision of, a person other than the first-mentioned person;

“hirer” means a person engaged in an economic activity for whom, and under the direction and supervision of whom, an agency worker carries out work pursuant to an agreement (whether in writing or not) between the employment agency by whom the agency worker is employed and the first-mentioned person or any other person;

6. Deliberation & Findings

The Act provides protection to agency workers such that they are entitled to the same ‘basic working and employment conditions’ as those employees directly employed by the Hirer. It also provides protection against penalisation or a threat of penalisation where agency workers invoke their rights under the Act.

The first matter for the Court to determine is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the complaint having regard to the preliminary matters raised.

Time Limits

The Complainant lodged his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 10 January 2024. The relevant period for initial consideration by the Court when assessing an alleged breach of the Act - having regard to the statutory time limit set down at Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 - is the six-month period before the complaint was lodged, i.e. the period from 11 July 2023 to 10 January 2024.

The Complainant accepts that he was directly employed by the Respondent under a contract of employment in the period from 11 July 2023 to 21 July 2023 and was not an agency worker, as defined in the Act, during that time. He also accepts that he did not work as an agency worker after 21 July 2023.

Having regard to the above, the Court finds that there is no basis to a complaint that the Respondent contravened the Act during the six-month period prior to the Complainant lodging his complaint to the WRC.

Application for an extension of Time

The Complainant seeks to extend the timeframe for lodging his complaint, as allowed at Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The application for extending time is made on the basis that his failure to present a complaint within time was due to reasonable cause.

Should the Court find a reasonable cause for the delay in lodging the claim, the timeframe for considering when a contravention occurred can be extended.

For the Court to grant an extension of time, the Complainant must provide an explanation for the delay and offer a justifiable excuse for the delay. The Complainant must establish a causal connection between the reason for the delay and the failure to present the complaint in time. Finally, the Court must satisfy itself that the complaint would have been presented in time if not for the factors relied upon as reasonable cause. It is the actual delay that must be explained and justified.

The Representative for the Complainant contends that the complaint was not lodged in time as the Complainant did not have a representative and had difficulties filling out the form.

The Court notes that a separate complaint was taken by the Complainant to the WRC on 18 August 2023 against a named registered employment agency, which was heard on the same date and by the same Adjudication Officer as the within complaint. No reason was given to explain how or why the Complainant lodged a separate complaint to the WRC on 18 August 2023 against another entity yet failed to lodge a complaint against the Respondent around that time.

Having regard to the above, the Court is of the view that no adequate explanation was provided to properly explain why the Complainant did not lodge his complaint within the relevant six-month statutory time limit, given his ability to lodge another complaint against another entity to the WRC at that time.

As a result, the Court is of the view that a justifiable basis upon which an extension of time could be granted has not been put forward in this case.

The Court cannot assume jurisdiction which is not conferred to it. A failure on the part of a Complainant to present a complaint in time deprives the Adjudication Officer, and this Court on appeal, of jurisdiction to hear the claim. As a result, the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

In light of the above finding, there is no necessity for the Court to consider the other preliminary matter raised.

7. Decision

The Court finds that the within claim was out of time when it was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission and is accordingly statute barred.  In these circumstances, the Court cannot proceed to hear the substantive matter.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the complaint is not well founded and that the Decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

The Court so Determines,

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AL	______________________
29 September 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.