UDD2543

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00044816 (CA-00062238-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 05 January 2025 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 November 2025.

The following is the Decision of the Court:-

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Ms O’ Reilly (the Complainant) against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015 (the Act) against her then employer An Post (the Respondent).

The Adjudication Officer held that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in July 2009 and was dismissed on 22 June 2023. It was not disputed that she received a letter dated 13th June 2023 advising her of the decision to dismiss and informing her of her right to appeal that decision. The letter confirmed that if no appeal was lodged, the dismissal would be effective eight working days from the date of the letter being 22 June 2023. The Complainant did not appeal the decision to dismiss her. The Complainant lodged her complaint with the WRC on 14 March 2024. The cognisable period for the purpose of the Act is 15 September 2023 to 14 March 2024. The Complainant’s dismissal predated this period.

Preliminary issues

The parties agreed that the Court would hear them firstly on the preliminary issue of time limits.

The representative for the Complainant submitted that the Court should ignore the time limits issue and just hear the parties on the substantive issue. No legal basis for doing this was articulated. The representative stated that an extension of time should be granted because the Complainant was never given her case file by the Respondent, nor was she ever given evidence of why she was dismissed. It was his submission that she was entitled to wait until she received these documents to decide if she wanted to pursue a complaint.

The representative accepted that the Complainant had received a letter of dismissal on 13 June 2023 and confirmed that he had instructed her not to appeal the decision. He confirmed that he was familiar with the time limits set out in the Act and with the CementationSkanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll Determination WTC0338 case and test contained therein.

Mr McKeon BL for the Respondent stated that a letter of dismissal had issued to the Complainant on 13 June 2023 affording her an opportunity to appeal same and informing the Complainant that if no appeal was lodged the dismissal would take affect from 22 June 2O23. It is common cause that no appeal was lodged and that the Complainant received that letter. 

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 states that an extension of time can be granted for reasonable cause. The case of CementationSkanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll Determination WTC0338, identifies a five-stage test to establish reasonable cause. The Complainant has not set out any grounds for the delay in referring the case to the WRC and none of the five limbs in the Cementation Skanska case have been satisfied.

On that basis her complaint is out of time and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear it.

Conclusion of the Court on the Preliminary Matter

TheCourt in the case of CementationSkanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll Determination WTC0338 established the test for deciding if an extension should be granted for reasonable cause. The test was set out in the following terms: -

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.

The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only a slight explanation whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons. Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case.

The Complainant’s representative submitted that she was never given her case file by the Respondent, was never given evidence of why she was dismissed and that was why she delayed lodging her complaint.

He accepted that she had received the letter of dismissal and that she chosen not to appeal that decision.

It is clear from the letter of 13th June 2023 that the Complainant was on notice of dismissal, and that if an appeal was not lodged the dismissal would come into effect on 22 June2023. When lodging a complaint to the WRC the requirement is that a form is completed setting out the nature of the complaint. There is no requirement to make a submission at that point and therefore the fact that she had not received some documents that she had sought, does not meet the five-limb test for reasonable cause set out above.

The Court is satisfied that the Complainant’s complaint was presented to the WRC outside of the statutory time limit. The Complainant’s last date of employment was the 22 June 2023. The Court is satisfied that, if there was a contravention of the Act, that date is the last date when such a contravention took place. The Complainant’s claim was not presented to the Workplace Relations Commission until 14 March 2024 and was therefore outside of the statutory time limit.   The Court notes the reasons proffered by the Complainant. The Court finds that these reasons neither explain the delay, nor afford an excuse for the delay. Therefore, her appeal must fail.

Determination

For all the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the complaint under the Act is statute-barred and therefore must fail.  The Court cannot proceed to hear the substantive matter.

Accordingly, the Complainant’s appeal is not allowed, and the Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so Determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AL	______________________
16 December 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.