Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sean  Guthrie

Fhb

Representatives

  Self Represented

 Alastair Purdy and Co. Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00067443-001

17/11/2024

The Complainant was employed from September 14th 1998 to May 10th 2024 as Finance Manager. He had entered into arrangements regarding working hours to be a Carer for his elderly Mother. On November 17th 2024 the Complainant submitted a complaint under the above Act. The Respondent stated at the Hearing that the complaint was legally out of time and they were not prepared to engage on the substantive issue (change in working hours) until a determination had been made on whether the complaint was in or out of time. In certain circumstances it is accepted practice to proceed on this basis and issue a decision on the preliminary issue. The purpose of this Decision is to adjudicate on this issue.

The Complainant stated he originally completed his complaint on line on the 15th of October 2024 and  he thought he had submitted it to the WRC on that date. However, he only saved it as a draft. It was only when he had not heard back from the WRC that he checked it and discovered that he had made a mistake. He then redid the complaint and submitted it on the 17th of November 2024. The Complainant accepted it was a total error on his part and he requested an extension of time to have his case heard for reasonable cause (outside of the 6 month legal timeframe for submitting complaints).

The Respondent noted that the Complainant lodged the within complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission on 17 November 2024. It is further acknowledged that the Complainant’s employment, as conceded by him, terminated on 10 May 2024.

In accordance with Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (as amended), a complaint must be presented within six months from the date of the alleged contravention. While the Respondent is not privy to the substance of the complaint under the Parental Leave Act 1998 (as amended), the statutory time limit remains applicable irrespective of the nature of the claim. As such, the Complainant was required to submit his complaint no later than 10  November  2024 — six months from the date of termination.

Given that the complaint was lodged outside the statutory timeframe and in the absence of any reasonable cause being advanced for the delay, the Respondent submitted that the complaint is statute barred and should be dismissed accordingly and requested a decision on the preliminary issue prior to the Respondent incurring the cost and time to defend the substantive issue.

Pursuant to the direction of the WRC Adjudicator dated 19 February 2025, the Complainant was given an opportunity to provide information in support of his application for an extension of time on the grounds of reasonable cause under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (as amended). In response, the WRC has supplied this office with an email dated 15 October 2024, provided by the Complainant. This email, sent by the WRC to the Complainant, confirms that his workplace complaint was saved as a draft on the WRC website. The email clearly states that the Complainant was provided with a one-time link to continue filling out the complaint form, which would remain valid for 30 days. It further explains in plain terms that all mandatory fields must be completed before submission. In other words, the communication unambiguously confirms that the complaint had not been lodged and remained in draft format, pending further action by the Complainant. In light of this, the Respondent submitted the following arguments regarding the evidence provided by the Complainant:

The email from the WRC dated 15 October explicitly states that the complaint was saved as a draft. The language used in the email is clear and unambiguous, specifying that the complaint was not formally submitted but rather retained as a draft for further completion. No reasonable person could construe this email as confirmation that the complaint was lodged with the WRC on 15 October.

The process of saving a draft is distinct from the formal submission of a complaint. The Complainant’s actions on 15 October did not result in a validly lodged complaint within the statutory six-month period in accordance with Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Acts, 2015 (as amended) (“2015 Act”). Merely drafting a complaint does not satisfy the statutory requirement for lodging a complaint under the 2015 Act.

The Complainant had ample time to complete and submit the complaint before the six-month deadline of 10 November. The failure to lodge the complaint within the statutory timeframe is an administrative oversight on the part of the Complainant. Such an oversight does not constitute reasonable cause for an extension of time under Section 41 (8) of the 2015 Act. The Complainant contends that saving a draft within time should justify either: (1) the complaint being deemed lodged within the six-month period in accordance with Section 41 (6) of the 2015 Act, or (2) an extension of time under the “reasonable cause” standard under Section 41 (8) of the 2015 Act. This argument is flawed, as the legislation does not recognise draft submissions as valid complaints. If this reasoning were accepted, any Complainant could circumvent statutory deadlines by merely saving drafts without formal lodgement.

Under Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the Complainant must demonstrate reasonable cause for an extension of time. An administrative oversight or failure to complete the process on time does not meet this threshold. There is no evidence of exceptional circumstances preventing the complainant from submitting the complaint within the six-month period. In the WRC’s correspondence dated 25 February 2025, it is stated that the WRC system had an issue with “fully registering the complaint”. This is simply not the case. It appears the Complainant availed of the new online WRC Complaint Form filing mechanism, where a complainant who commences a form receives a link to continue editing it form thereafter. At no point in the correspondence supplied by the Complainant is there any mention of a system error or registration issue. Rather, the WRC explains to the Complainant that his form is in draft form and is required to be completed. The simple fact remains: no submission or filing was completed that could have been registered. The form remained incomplete. Furthermore, as of the 15 October 2024, the Complainant was explicitly on notice that the form was incomplete and required further details before it could be formally submitted. Even if there had been an issue with the WRC system—which is not accepted, given that no such error is referenced in any correspondence—the Complainant had every opportunity thereafter to properly file the complaint within the required timeframe – which he failed to do so.

Legal Submissions Under Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015; An adjudication officer cannot consider a complaint if it was lodged with the Director General more than six months after the date of the alleged contravention. This provision establishes a strict statutory time limit for submitting complaints. However, under Section 41(8), an extension of time may be granted only where the complainant demonstrates “reasonable cause” for the delay. The test for determining reasonable cause has been addressed in numerous decisions, including Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll DWT0338, where the Court set out the following principles: “It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say, it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence, there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay, and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time… It is the actual delay that must be explained and justified. Hence, if the factors relied upon to explain the delay ceased to operate before the complaint was presented, that may undermine a claim that those factors were the actual cause of the delay. Finally, while the established test imposes a relatively low threshold of reasonableness on an applicant, there is some limitation on the range of issues which can be taken into account. In particular, as was pointed out by Costello J in the passage quoted above, a Court should not extend a statutory time limit merely because the applicant subjectively believed that he or she was justified in delaying the institution of proceedings.” The Respondent submitted that the reasons advanced by the Complainant do not meet the threshold for reasonable cause.

Specifically: • The Complainant’s assertion that he required time to come to terms with his dismissal and years of service does not constitute a legal impediment preventing the timely submission of his complaint. • The fact that the Complainant drafted the complaint in October but failed to formally lodge it within the six-month period is not a justifiable excuse. The statutory deadline requires that a complaint be submitted, not merely drafted. • The Complainant was aware of the facts and circumstances underpinning his claim within the six-month period, yet failed to act within the prescribed time limit. The failure to submit the complaint was a matter of administrative oversight rather than an issue preventing compliance with the statutory timeframe. In summary, the Complainant has not demonstrated a causal link between the alleged circumstances and the delay in submitting his complaint. His failure to lodge the claim within the prescribed timeframe was not due to any reasonable cause but rather due to his own inaction. Accordingly, the request for an extension of time should be refused.

The Complainant submitted his complaint on November 17th 2024. The Complainant resigned on May 10th 2024 due to the denial of his request and the responses (refusal) by the Respondent to his request for continued changed hours took place on February 23rd 2024.  Therefore, the cognisable period for the complaint under the Act is from May 10th 2024 to November 9th 2024.

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides that if a complaint is not submitted within six months of the alleged contravention, an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum time limit of twelve months where, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in accordance with the provisions:  “An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than six 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.”  The Complainant has requested that I grant his request to extend the time for submission of his complaint to 12 months for reasonable cause. It is a matter for the Complainant to establish that there was reasonable cause for the delay.  The Respondent has set out its grounds for objecting to the extension of time.

The standard test for establishing if reasonable cause is shown for the purpose of granting an extension of time is that formulated in Labour Court Determination No: DWT0338 –Cementation Skanska and Carroll. This test is already quoted above.

In relation to the application to extend time, I have checked with the WRC IT Department and they confirmed that it is possible to save a draft of work in progress on line. The WRC IT department informed me that the “save as draft” functionality on the form is merely only to save your progress and come back to the form at a later stage to finalise and then submit.  The date the form is submitted is the day a Complainant finalised it and submits it. The Complainant engaged with the WRC on October 15th 2024 regarding his complaint and was clearly informed in writing that what he had saved was still in draft form and gave him a link to complete his complaint. Therefore, the Complainant was well aware he had not submitted the form at that stage and had ample time to complete and submit the form before the 6 month deadline. It was a matter for a Complainant to know the legal time limit for submitting his complaint. The Complainant completed the process outside of the 6 month timeframe allowed. Also, the Complainant had ample time from the date of his termination, May 10th 2024, to submit his complaint. Waiting until the last month to start his complaint was not a prudent thing to do, albeit within the allowable six month time frame.

The starting of a complaint on line and the delayed completion of it is something that is open to all Complainants to do. If allowed, the delay in time from the commencement date (draft date) to the submission date of the complaint as reasonable cause would open the door to all Complainants to extend the time from six months to 12 months automatically by saving a draft within the six months. This would not be reasonable and would circumvent the law regarding when complaints had to be submitted. On the ground that the Complainant was clearly aware he had not submitted his complaint on October 15th 2023 and had ample time to complete it before the 6 month deadline, November 9th 2023,  I deny the Complainants request for an extension of time beyond 6 months for reasonable cause and find that he is not in a legal position to proceed with his substantive complaint.

I find the complaint was submitted out of time and there was no reasonable cause to extend the time beyond 6 months to allow the substantive complaint be adjudicated upon.