EDA2224

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S)ADJ-00031074, CA00041315

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 10th February 2022. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th October 2022. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION :

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by Frank Madigan (the Appellant) of a decision by an Adjudication Officer in his complaint that the Public Appointments Service (the Respondent) discriminated against him on grounds of age contrary to the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015 (the Act).

The Adjudication Officer addressed the question of time limits for the making of a complaint under the Act. The Adjudication Officer decided that the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), made on 30^th November 2020, was made outside of the time limit permissible for the making of a complaint as set out in the Act at Section 77(5)(a).

Background

The Appellant participated in a recruitment competition operated by the Respondent in 2019. He progressed through to the final stage of the competition which involved an interview and presentation. He was informed on 30^th August 2019 that he had not been successful in his application.

The Appellant confirmed to the Court at its hearing that the alleged act of discrimination before the Court was the failure of the “presentation assessment board” to place him on a panel for appointment. He confirmed that no other allegation of discrimination was before the Court. He also confirmed that he was advised on 30^th August 2019 that the “presentation assessment board” had decided not to place him on the panel for appointment.

It is common case that the within complaint was received by the WRC on 30^th November 2020.

Having heard the parties’ submissions on the matter of the time limits set out in the Act for the making of a complaint, the Court proposed to the parties that it should, in the interest of efficiency of process and because it had the potential to dispose of the matter in its entirety, address the matter of time limits as a preliminary matter and proceed to decide that matter before hearing the parties in relation to the substantive matter. The Court explained that if it proceeded in this manner, a further hearing would only take place if the Court decided that the complaint was presented to the WRC in time.

Both parties confirmed that they were satisfied for the Court to proceed in the manner outlined.

The Law Applicable

Section 77(5) of the Acts in relevant part provides as follows:

• (5) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.

  (b) On application by a complainant the F118 Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

Discussion and Conclusions

There is no dispute before the Court that the “presentation board assessors” had completed their functions and conveyed their decision to the Appellant by 30^th August 2019. There is no contention before the Court that the complaint of the Appellant was presented to the WRC any earlier than 30^th November 2020.

In these circumstances the Court concludes that the Appellant presented his complaint to the WRC more than 12 months after the occurrence of the alleged act of discrimination.

Having regard therefore to the provisions of the Act, the Court concludes that even if reasonable cause was established for a delay in the making of the within complaint, the limit of the statutory capacity of the Court to extend time is 12 months. The fact that the within complaint was not made to the WRC within 12 months of the occurrence of the alleged act of discrimination means that the Court cannot extend time so as to bring the within complaint into time.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer must therefore be affirmed.

Decision.

The within appeal fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
7th October 2022	Chairman