Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Liz  Keating

Globoforce Limited

t/a Workhuman Ltd  

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

David McCauley

McCann FitzGerald

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00066104-001

18/09/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski  -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice.  Had evidence been given it would have been given on Oath or Affirmation.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 18th of September 2024.

The Complainant was not represented and made her own case. I was provided with a comprehensive submission prepared by the Complainant and dated the 9th day of April 2025.  The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making her case.

The Complainant alleges that she was discriminated against in the workplace by reason of her gender, age and disability. The Complainant asserts that the discrimination also formed part of the rationale for the termination of her employment which was terminated by way of redundancy.

The Complainant was on notice of the fact that the significant lapse of time between the bringing of this complaint and the termination of the employment by way of redundancy was problematic as a fifteen-month period had, in fact, elapsed.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent was additionally represented by an in-house lawyer. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated the 3rd of April 2025.

The Respondent categorically rejects that there has been any discrimination perpetrated against the Complainant herein.

The Respondent asserts that issues herein have already been dealt with in a full-blown Unfair Dismissals claim previously dealt with in the WRC. The Respondent further challenges my jurisdiction to make any decision or finding in circumstances where the Complainant has indicated that the last date on which she was discriminated against was some 18 months prior to the issuing of the Workplace Relations Complaint Form.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully considered the matters herein and have ultimately been able to confine my role to a consideration of the preliminary issue raised by the Respondent.

As previously noted, an Adjudication Officer cannot entertain a complaint presented after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Act states:-

“…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.”

In limited circumstances, a complaint presented outside the relevant period may be entertained if the failure to present was due to reasonable cause. This will not exceed a twelve-month period.

The Complainant herein commenced her employment in April of 2015. In March of 2023 the Complainant was advised that her role was at risk of Redundancy and after a two-month period the Complainant was made redundant on the 8th of May 2023 which terminated her relationship with her Employer.

I am satisfied that the WRC has already confirmed that this was not an Unfair Dismissal and that a genuine redundancy existed, and the Complainant was let go alongside another 40 or so colleagues. I am also satisfied that eh Complainant had legal assistance through that process.

It seems that the Complainant, in conversation with others of her colleagues, formed the view that there had been a pattern of behaviour in the workplace which amount to discrimination on the grounds of gender, age and disability. It appears that the Complainant proposed making the case that this discrimination culminated in her selection for Redundancy on the 19th of March 2023.

It is an unfortunate fact that the Complainant did not issue a workplace relations complaint form until the 18th of September 2024. This was 18 months after the Complainant was notified of a potential redundancy and 15 months after the actual redundancy.

Even if the Complainant had been in a position to demonstrate reasonable cause her complaint was nonetheless still lodged well after the twelve-month period which I can allow under Statute to consider. I simply do not have the jurisdiction to consider a complaint lodged so late.

The Act provides for a time limit for commencing claims.  It must be understood that limiting the time frame within which a complaint can be made serves several important legal purposes including the need to provide legal certainty, encouraging timely resolution, preventing the bringing of stale claims and generally encouraging efficiencies in the dispute resolution process. There is a requirement that Complainants come forward quickly, while memories are fresh and to avoid uncertainty. I appreciate the Complainant might be disappointed not to be allowed to air her grievances in this regard, but the complaints process must adhere to the timelines provided by Statute.

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

CA-00066104-001 – The complaint herein fails in circumstances where I do not have the jurisdiction to entertain same by reason of the failure to heave the complaint issue within six months of the contravention.