PWD2615

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00055337 (CA-00067143-001)

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 Decision:

DECISION:

1. Background

This is an appeal by Greta Ivanova (“the Complainant”) against a Decision of an Adjudication (dated 8 July 2025) made in a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (“the Act”) about her former employer, Mainline Links (“the Respondent”).

The complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 4 November 2024. The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was out of time and declined jurisdiction.

An appeal was lodged to the Labour Court on 25 July 2025. The parties were notified that the appeal would be heard at a remote hearing on 20 July 2026.

In advance of the hearing date, on 13 July 2026, the Complainant’s representative submitted a request for an interpreter to assist the Complainant at the hearing. It was not possible for the Labour Court to facilitate the late request for an interpreter at a remote hearing. The Complainant’s representative confirmed that the Complainant did not wish to seek a postponement of the scheduled hearing. At the hearing the Complainant’s representative confirmed to the Court that the Complainant could understand English and was happy to proceed with the hearing that day. The Court heard submissions from both parties. No witness testimony was proffered.

2. Preliminary Matter Time Limits

A preliminary matter arises in relation to the time limits under the Act for lodging a complaint. The Court advised the parties that as the matter of time limits goes to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal it would hear from the parties on that preliminary matter in the first instance. 

3. Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant is a Bulgarian citizen who worked in Ireland from 25 May 2023 until 23 July 2023. The Complainant submits that she was subject to an unlawful deduction from her wages by the Respondent on 19 July 2023.

The Complainant sought to vindicate her rights through the Bulgarian Labour Authority, which deals with matters for Bulgarian citizens working abroad. The Complainant lodged her complaint to that authority on 8 November 2023 and relied in good faith on that third party to lodge her complaint to the WRC on her behalf. On 10 April 2024, the Bulgarian Labour Authority confirmed to the Complainant that the complaint was formally registered and forwarded to the competent Irish authority.

The Complainant received no further official reply in relation to her complaint. The Complainant made many follow up calls seeking a status update on the complaint. When the Complainant did not hear back, she lodged a second complaint to the WRC on 4 November 2024.

The Complainant relied on the third-party representations that her initial complaint was lodged on time. In the circumstances, the effective filing of the complaint ought to be recognised as either 8 November 2023 or 10 April 2024, when she progressed that initial complaint. Therefore, the complaint under the Act was lodged within the 12-month statutory period.

4. Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Complainant’s employment ended on 23 July 2023. The alleged contraventions occurred in July 2023.  The complaint was lodged to the WRC on 4 November 2024.  There is no evidence that a complaint was lodged to the WRC prior to 4 November 2024. The communication with the Bulgarian Labour Inspectorate does not constitute a filing of a valid complaint under Irish law.

The complaint was lodged outside the six-month statutory time limit and outside the maximum twelve-month period for an extension of that time limit where reasonable cause is established.

5. Relevant Law

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.”

6. Deliberations

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 specifies the time limit that applies for lodging a complaint under the Act. That provision specifies that a claim for redress regarding a breach of the Act cannot be referred “after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”. In other words, the Act requires that the Complainant must lodge a complaint within six-months of an alleged breach. That timeframe may be extended by a further period of 6 months if the failure to present the complaint in time was due to reasonable cause.

The facts submitted in this case are that the Complainant filed an initial complaint with the Bulgarian authorities on 8 November 2023 and relied on that authority to lodge her complaint under the Act with the WRC in time. In reply to questions from the Court, the Complainant’s representative said that they did not follow up to clarify with the WRC if it ever received the first complaint. 

The Court heard that the Complainant lodged a second complaint to the WRC on 4 November 2024, when she did not hear back from the WRC in relation to her initial complaint. The Complainant’s representative accepted that the only matter before the Labour Court is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s decision in relation to the second complaint, which was lodged to the WRC on 4 November 2024.

The Complainant’s representative submits that the delay in lodging the complaint was not attributable to any actions on the part of the Complainant. While that may be the case, the Court’s jurisdiction is confined to assessing breaches of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that occurred within the time limits specified at section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The statutory time limit allowed is 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates, which may be extended to a maximum time limit of 12 months if there is reasonable cause.

The alleged contravention of the Act occurred on 19 July 2023. The within complaint was lodged to the WRC on 4 November 2024. The complaint was lodged to the WRC some sixteen months after the alleged contravention of the Act. The complaint was not lodged within the maximum 12-month statutory time limits allowed.

The Labour Court is a creature of statute, and its powers and duties are derived solely from statute. The Court cannot assume a jurisdiction which is not conferred to it by statute and does not have a ‘discretion’ to vary or extend the time limits set down in relevant statutes. 

A failure on the part of an Appellant to present a complaint in time deprives the Adjudication Officer, and this Court on appeal, of jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The Court finds that the complaint was out of time when it was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission on 4 November 2024 and is accordingly statute barred. 

In these circumstances, the Court cannot proceed to hear the substantive matter.

7. Finding

The Court finds that the complaint was lodged on 4 November 2024 outside the statutory time limits permitted.  The Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The appeal is rejected, and the Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
JNF	______________________
5th June 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Julie Nicholl-Flood, Court Secretary.