UDD2529

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00049464 (CA-00060765-001).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 13 December 2024 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015.

A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 19 June 2025.

The following is the Decision of the Court:-

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Penelope Aherne (the Complainant) against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 (the Acts) in respect of her claim against her employer Dunnes Stores (the Respondent). The complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 29 December 2023 and appealed to the Labour Court on 11 December 2024. The reckonable period for the purpose of the Act is 30 June 2023 to 29 December 2023.

The Complainant’s employment terminated with the Respondent by letter of resignation dated 9 December 2022.  The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was submitted more than 12 months after the employment ended and was therefore, out of time. At the Labour Court hearing on 19 June 2025 the parties were afforded an opportunity to make additional written submissions on the preliminary issues.  The final submission was received on 21 July 2025.

1 Preliminary Issue – Time Limit

There are two preliminary issues 1) was the complaint lodged within twelve months of the termination of her employment and if so, 2) was their reasonable cause for not lodging the case within six months of the termination of her employment. The Court decided that initially it would hear the parties on the first issue as that could be determinative of the case.

2 Summary of Complainant’s submission

Mr Barry Clifford representative for the Complainant submitted that as the Adjudication Officer had adjudicated on the time limits the Respondent was precluded from raising it with the Labour Court. The appeal to the Labour Court was in time and all hearing’s before the Labour Court are De Novo as per the Labour Court rules.  He cited the following case Padraic Hanley v PBR Restaurants Ltd [2024] IEHC 662, in supporting his position that the Complainant may be allowed to change strategy between a WRC hearing and Labour Court hearing, and that the term de novo requires that the appellate body exercises its own judgement without any regard to the decision at first instance.

He also sought to rely on Rachel Aherne v Acorn Brokerage LTD t/a Acorn Insurance Broker UDD2316 in supporting his position that the Complainant was entitled to have her case heard in full regardless of the time limits, as her appeal was a valid appeal. It was his submission that the Complainant’s complaint for constructive dismissal could still be heard as any errors she made were done on-line on a WRC non-statutory form, which he submitted was non-binding on the Labour Court.

Mr Clifford went on to say that the time limits issue was a technical defence and should not be allowed defeat the claim. The primary role of the Labour Court in disputes is to make a recommendation for the resolution of disputes, when other efforts have failed, and the Court is required to allow parties to be heard.

3 Summary of Respondent’s submission

Mr Keany BL on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not provided any legal basis for asserting that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim which it is accepted was lodged with the WRC outside of the 6 month and 12-month time limit set down in the Act. The issue of time limits is fundamental and runs to the core of the Labour Court’s jurisdiction to hear the substance of the appeal. It is not nor has it even been in dispute that the appeal to the Labour Court was lodged in time. The Complainant’s representative has sought to rely on Bolger J in Hanley v PBR Restaurants Ltd in terms of change of strategy and the Court hearing being a De Novo hearing neither of which are disputed. However, in that judgment Bolger J also states:

 “ where a party to an appeal does not agree to the court determining a preliminary issue (other than in relation to a jurisdictional issue such as time where there is clear jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction as a preliminary issue) then no matter how efficient a preliminary determination might appear to be, the Labour Court is required to allow that party to be heard and to present evidence including any new evidence it may wish to raise, in accordance with section 44 “

The issue under consideration by the Court is precisely the type of jurisdictional issue which, as contemplated by Bolger J. in Hanley, ought to be determined on a preliminary basis.

No proper legal basis has been articulated by the Complainant or her representative in support of her general contention that the Labour court has jurisdiction to hear the substance of her appeal.

4 The relevant Law

The Workplace Relations Act 2015 at section 6 states:

(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.

5 Discussion on the Preliminary matters

The case before the Court is an employment rights case and the role of the Court in such a case is different to its role in an Industrial relations case. In an Industrial relations case, the role of the Court is to make a recommendation to the parties that it believes will assist with the resolution of a dispute between a worker and their employer. Such a recommendation is not legally enforceable and there is no appeal of the Labour Court’s recommendation. In an employment rights case such as this, the role of the Court is to apply the legislation to the facts of the case and issue a decision that is legally enforceable and appealable on a point of law to the High Court. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court in an employment rights case is as set out in the legislation.

The following facts are not in dispute.

The Complainant resigned with effect from December 2022 and submitted a doctor’s note stating that she was not able to work her notice period.

The Complainant’s contract contained a two weeks’ notice period requirement.

Including that contractual notice period to the resignation date of 9 December 2022 would give an end date of 23 December 2022.

The complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 29 December 2023 which is more than twelve months after the employment ended, even if the notice period was included (this was not contended for by the Complainant or her representative).

Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the Complainant’s complaint was presented to the WRC outside of the statutory time limit and the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

6 Determination

For all the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the complaint under the Act is outside the statutory time limits and therefore must fail.  In these circumstances, the Court cannot proceed to hear the substantive matter.

Accordingly, the appeal fails, and the Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so Determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
28 AUGUST 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.