Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Secretary

A Motor Repair Business

Representatives

Liam O’Flaherty BL instructed by J Cashell Solicitors

David Fitzgerald of O' Sullivan Reidy Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00068061-001

12/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00068061-002

12/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00068061-003

12/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00068061-004

12/12/2024

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

CA-00068061-005

12/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068061-006

12/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068061-007

12/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00068061-008

12/12/2024

The Complainant gave her evidence on affirmation at the outset of the hearing.

The Respondent gave evidence himself as a sole trader, on affirmation. There was further evidence proffered by the Respondent’s son, also on affirmation.

The Complaint Form was opened at the outset of the hearing and the parties agreed that the Complainant commenced employment on 14 October 2019, but the end date was in dispute. It was further agreed that she earned a gross weekly sum of €343.58.

Both parties provided submissions in advance of the hearing which was exchanged.

Both parties made an application to have the complaint anonymised. While this is option is only afforded in exceptional circumstances, given the relevant nature of the Complainant’s illness to the complaint, their family relationship and the fact that both parties live in a small town in rural Ireland, the decision has been anonymised.

The Complainant began working for the Respondent in a small family business as a secretary, but her role expanded to include estimating, invoicing, payroll, ordering parts, stock control, social media, and recruitment. She described a close personal relationship with the Respondent. In October 2021, she informed him of her pregnancy; while initially supportive, he joked about her not taking full maternity leave. No cover was arranged, and she commenced leave eight days before giving birth.

Her child’s medical emergency and subsequent postnatal depression prevented her from returning after maternity leave. She informed the Respondent of her condition in December 2022 and was told to take as long as needed. Recovery required eight to nine months of therapy. During this time, she maintained limited contact and received holiday pay up to January 2023.

In February 2023, the Complainant met the Respondent briefly, but no return date was discussed. She later offered to work remotely but received no response. After marrying, she became pregnant again and informed the Respondent in July 2023, having arranged childcare to return. She said he reacted negatively, questioned her commitment, and later ignored her follow-up messages seeking clarification. Despite repeated attempts via text, email, and registered letters, she received no reply or termination notice and remained listed as an active employee on Revenue, leaving her in limbo. The Complainant believes her second pregnancy was the reason she was not reinstated.

In June 2024, the Complainant sent a redundancy form seeking clarity on her employment status but received no response from the Respondent. She remained listed as an active employee on Revenue and still was up to and including the date of the hearing. She stated the first time she received confirmation of her employment status was by letter dated 21 October 2024 from the Respondent’s solicitor.  She said this left her without wages or social welfare, causing severe emotional, financial, and mental strain, and she felt punished for starting a family.

The Complainant confirmed under cross examination that she handled invoicing, supplier payments, and some payroll, while the Respondent’s wife managed most Revenue tasks. She acknowledged having a personal Revenue account but believed the employer was responsible for ending her employment status. She clarified she contacted Social Welfare and Citizens Information, not Revenue, and was advised to obtain a termination letter. She stated she was unaware employees could update cessation themselves and was never informed of this option.

She admitted not checking the Revenue website despite having access and reiterated reliance on advice from Social Welfare and Citizens Information. She accepted her earlier reference to contacting Revenue was an error. She confirmed her first pregnancy in October 2021, that the Respondent was supportive, and that their relationship included sarcastic humour.

Her second pregnancy was discovered in July 2023. She said she had planned to return in November 2022 but moved to parental leave, which was approved. She acknowledged WhatsApp messages from December 2022 where the Respondent asked if she was returning; she replied “No” and later reminded him about bank holiday pay and parental leave ending on 15 January before moving to illness benefit. She explained her joking response referenced an incorrect date, consistent with their usual tone.

She informed the Respondent in December 2022 that she would be out for some time and moving to illness benefit on GP advice. No sick certificates were submitted in January, as they were never required, but she later sent one in March with an apology and offer to work from home. She said copies were shared with her solicitor, though the Respondent disputes receiving them, citing phone issues.

She confirmed sending a wedding invitation in April 2023 and believed relations were cordial despite tension. She denied saying she would not return during a February 2023 meeting, describing it as light-hearted. She informed the Respondent of her second pregnancy immediately after her 12-week scan in July 2023.

After meeting on 31 July 2023, she sent WhatsApp messages in early August seeking clarity on her job status. On 22 August, she wrote, “as you have made me aware that you are terminating my employment,” hoping for confirmation but received no response. She later sent a registered letter on 27 November 2023 referring to termination and stating she had sought advice. She confirmed contacting Citizens Information several times and was advised to obtain a termination letter; legal advice was recommended shortly before meeting her solicitor at the end of August 2024.

She acknowledged sending a redundancy form on 27 June 2024 referencing WRC, though she had not yet engaged her solicitor. Her WRC claim was lodged on 12 December 2024 after her solicitor awaited confirmation from the Respondent. She received a letter from the Respondent’s solicitor on 21 October 2024 confirming employment had ended. She explained the delay in filing was due to awaiting clarification and personal circumstances, including a second C-section in February 2024.

She denied offering to draft contracts, stating the Respondent never implemented them despite accountant advice. She reiterated her belief that pregnancy was the reason she lost her job and confirmed she does not know who now performs her duties. She said the Respondent mentioned changes to working hours and that his children were helping but gave no clarity on permanent cover.

Since August 2023, she has not secured employment, explaining childcare issues and her daughter’s ongoing assessments made job-seeking impractical. She stated she had intended to return to work after her second child but could not be due to lack of clarity from the Respondent and loss of childcare arrangements.

The Respondent stated the Complainant performed well and went on maternity leave around May 2022, with an expected return in November, later extended to January 2023. WhatsApp messages before Christmas discussed her return on 15 January, but she did not return or provide sick certificates. He recalled a February 2023 meeting where, in his view, the Complainant’s husband twice said she was not returning, and she did not correct him. After that, he arranged with the accountant to manage invoices and paperwork, relying on family help rather than hiring a permanent replacement.

He confirmed his son now works full-time, handling repairs, wages, and payroll. He recalled meeting the Complainant on 31 July 2023 after her 12-week scan, where she raised personal grievances, mentioned childcare, and suggested returning in August or September. He told her to think about it and later sent WhatsApp messages on 8 August stating he had reorganized systems and felt it best to continue without changes as she would only return briefly. He said he received no response. The next communication was a registered letter on 3 November 2023 seeking clarification, which he did not answer, followed by a redundancy request on 27 June 2024, which he also ignored, believing she had effectively left. He confirmed receiving a solicitor’s letter on 21 September 2024 and said her active Revenue status was corrected by the accountant after that.

The Respondent said Revenue was updated after the solicitor’s letter, with earlier delays due to system issues. He denied pregnancy influenced any decision and refuted pregnancy-related dismissal. He confirmed no employment contracts were issued despite accountant advice and said he never received sick certificates or the March SMS. He recalled a brief Christmas 2022 visit where medication was mentioned but no discussion of extended leave. He denied making negative comments about pregnancy, saying any banter was light-hearted.

Under cross examination, he acknowledged the Complainant remained listed as active on Revenue until late 2024. He admitted not prioritizing the update after returning from holidays, describing it as oversight rather than intentional, and maintained she could have removed herself via her own account. He admitted there is no documentary evidence of his calls to Revenue about technical issues and acknowledged not informing the Complainant or her solicitor of these discussions. He explained Citizens Information advised him not to issue a letter or respond formally, which influenced his decision not to reply. He accepted inconsistencies between his oral evidence and written submissions regarding whether the Complainant herself said she would not return, clarifying her husband made the comment and she did not explicitly resign. He assumed she had left because she provided no further communication or sick certificates.

The Respondent’s son gave evidence of the engagement with Revenue to ensure the Complainant’s employment status reflected her employment had been terminated in August 2023. IT was his evidence that there had been an issue with the online system but it was clear at all times from the employer’s view that the date of termination was February 2023. He relied upon the live Revenue website to support his evidence.

Preliminary Issue

The Respondent submitted that the complaints lodged on 12 December 2024 were out of time. They were not filed within the six-month period required under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. Even if an extension of up to twelve months had been considered under Section 41(8), the complaints would still have been late. The Respondent noted that the complaints were lodged at least sixteen months after the alleged occurrence and argued that no reasonable grounds existed to excuse the delay.

It was the Complainant’s submission that the complaint was within time where the Respondent did not clarify her employment status until 24 September 2009. Despite her numerous attempts to seek clarity from the Respondent she had been left in limbo.

Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 sets out the Adjudication Officer’s jurisdiction for entertaining complaints:

“(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.”

These provisions are mirrored in Section 77(5)(a) of the Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2015 (the “1998 Act”) wherein it states that:

 “(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.”

Section 77(5)(b) of the 1998 Act provides for a limited jurisdiction for the WRC to extend the relevant time limit from six to 12 months. It states: -

“On application by a complainant the 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.”

Section 77(5) (b) of the 1998 Act essentially provides that where reasonable cause is shown for a delay in presenting a claim under the Act within the six-month time limit provided for at Section 77(5)(a) of the 1998 Act, that time period may be extended to a period not exceeding 12 months.

Section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 provides for a 52 week period beginning on the date of dismissal:-

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a lump sum unless before the end of the period of 52 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment—

(a) the payment has been agreed and paid, or

(b) the employee has made a claim for the payment by notice in writing given to the employer, or

(c) a question as to the right of the employee to the payment, or as to the amount of the payment, has been referred to the Director General under section 39.”

Having carefully considered the evidence presented by the parties and in particular the timeline, I find the following: -

On 8 June 2022, the Complainant commenced maternity leave. On 15 January 2023, parental leave ended, and the Complainant moved to Illness Benefit. In February 2023, the parties had a chance meeting at a supermarket where the Respondent claims the Complainant’s husband said she would not return, disputed by the Complainant. There were personal WhatsApp messages exchanged in the intervening period.

On 31 July 2023, during a workplace visit, the Complainant informed the Respondent of her second pregnancy. A WhatsApp exchange on 8 August 2023 followed, in which the Respondent indicated role changes and suggested continuing without her.

On 22 August 2023, the Complainant messaged seeking confirmation of termination; no response was received. On 3 November 2023, the Complainant sent a registered letter seeking clarification; again, no reply. The Complainant had her second child on 6 February 2024. On 27 June 2024, she sought redundancy by submitting an RP77 Form with an enclosed letter referencing a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”). On 24 September 2024, the Complainant’s solicitor wrote to the Respondent seeking an update on her employment status. By letter dated 21 October 2024, the Respondent’s solicitor confirmed employment had ended. On 12 December 2024, a WRC complaint was lodged.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that, up to and including the date of the hearing, she remained listed as an active employee on the Revenue website which she regularly checked. However, the Respondent provided evidence that her employment status was updated with Revenue on 17 August 2023, with a backdated termination date of 28 February 2023.

It is noted that despite organising childcare for her first child, she did not communicate a return to work date to the Respondent. She did not make any attempt to arrange a date. It has not gone unnoticed that there was no active engagement from the Respondent either.

It is significant that she continued to receive Illness Benefit until January 2024 and therefore was not medically fit to work, despite claiming her treating medical professionals were supportive of her return. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this contention, particularly as she did not provide medical certificates to her employer nor any medical report to support her return to work. This was all within her knowledge and power to procure. There was only evidence of one medical certificate being provided during the entire time by the Complainant on 9 March 2023, which was disputed by the Respondent.

Instead, the Complainant chose to seek to clarify her position through text messages, an RP77 Redundancy Form, letters, and eventually instructing her solicitor to write to the Respondent. The engagement was sporadic, which may be understandable given that she had two babies and health difficulties during this period but equally it was persistent, and she accepted that she had sought advice throughout this period. It was her evidence that she sought legal advice and spoke with the Department of Social Protection and Citizens Information during this period.

The facts of this case resemble a game of chess, with neither party wanting to make a move for fear of disentitling themselves to the protection of employment legislation. This case is also tainted by a degree of stubbornness from both parties due to family connections, which clouded their judgment. As a consequence, both parties have contributed to the difficulties in this case through their respective actions.

In conclusion, the most notable piece of evidence was the text message exchange of August 2023. The Complainant may have believed the Respondent’s messages of 8 August 2023 were unclear, yet the follow up text she sent begins with “As you made me aware that you are terminating my employment….” And continues to request a letter of termination. The Respondent did not seek to correct her understanding. His silence could reasonably be interpreted as agreement. For these reasons, on the balance of probabilities, the Complainant was on notice of the termination of her employment on 8 August 2023.

However, the reality of this complaint is that the Complainant was summarily dismissed by the Respondent in their text message exchange of 8 August 2023 in the days after she disclosed her second pregnancy.

Consequently, the date of dismissal was 8 August 2023.

Where the complaint was not referred to the WRC until 12 December 2024, I find that the Complainant, acquiesced and therefore, is outside the requisite time period for the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00068061-001

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00068061-002

I find the Complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00068061-003

I disallow the Complainant’s appeal.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00068061-004

For the reasons set out above, I find the Act was not contravened.

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

CA-00068061-005

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068061-006

 I find the complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068061-007

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00068061-008

I find the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Redundancy- Equality- Unfair Dismissal-Time