ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052864
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Roseanne Kelly Smith | Last Passive Ltd T/A Aircoach |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Peter Gilfedder IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00064542-001 | 03/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance withSection 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The Complainant as well as two witnesses on behalf of the Respondent, namely the Managing Director as well as the HR Business Partner, gave evidence on oath/affirmation and the opportunity for cross-examination was afforded to the parties.
Background:
The Complainant stated that she was left with no alternative but to terminate her employment on 18 August 2023 because of the conduct of her line manager. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that she was on maternity leave during which period she was overpaid. She stated that when she returned to work in 2023 her line manager raised the overpayment issue in front of all of her colleagues which was humiliating for her. The Complainant also asserted that another male work colleague had previously been overpaid but highlighted that the Respondent never sought a refund from him unlike they did from her. She also stated that when she returned from maternity leave she was told by her line manager out of the blue that she would no longer be allowed to work from home even though she (the line manager) continued to work from home. The Complainant stated that her line manager cancelled her working from home arrangement because she had complained about the amount of work she had. With the benefit of hindsight, she attributed her line manager’s conduct to a desire to force her to leave the organisation to avoid having to pay her redundancy. In cross-examination, the Complainant accepted that she had not raised the concerns she had with her line manager with anyone in the organisation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Managing Director of the Respondent stated in evidence that she had started with the Respondent in September 2023 but that the decision to centralise the finance function which would result in redundancies in the Dublin office team was not approved by the Board until May 2024, ten months after the Complainant had let her employment. The HR Business Partner stated that she travelled over to Ireland every month and asserted that no issues had ever been raised either by the Complainant or by any employee in the finance department that they had with the line manager. She also stated that the Respondent’s relevant policies, including the grievance policy, were readily available to the Complainant but that she did not utilise these. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Preliminary Matter: The Law Section 8(2) of the Act provides as follows:- (2) A claim for redress under this Act shall be initiated by giving a notice in writing (containing such particulars (if any) as may be specified in regulations under subsection (17) of section 41 of the Act of 2015 to the Director General— (a) within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal, or (b) within such period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the relevant dismissal as the adjudication officer considers appropriate, in circumstances where the adjudication officer is satisfied that the giving of the notice within the period referred to in paragraph (a) was prevented due to reasonable cause” Findings: The Complainant’s employment ended on 18 August 2023 and she did not submit her complaint to the WRC until 3 July 2024, more than 6 months after her employment ended. While she explained the delay by asserting that she only realised more than six months after her departure from the Respondent that she was the first of several employees who her line manager had forced into resigning from their employment so that the Respondent could avoid making redundancy payments, I find that these assertions were speculative and note that there was no direct evidence in this regard presented by any supporting witness. I also find that even if such evidence had been presented, it does not constitute reasonable cause that would justify extending the time period as set out in Section 8(2) (b) of the Act above. Accordingly, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Act. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Act for the reasons set out above. |
Dated: 28 05 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|