Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Andrzej  Hnat

EBHG Note One Ltd (amended at the hearing)

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00059279-001

08/10/2023

The Complainant attended with the assistance of an official interpreter. Evidence was given on Oath by the Complainant with the interpreter swearing an Affirmation.

There was no appearance on behalf of the employer Respondent. However, as a matter of curiosity to the Tribunal the Joint – Executor, Ms Fionnuala Murphy, of the estate of the deceased director of Respondent appeared with her Solicitor, Mr Canice Walsh.

It came to light at the outset of the hearing that the name of the Respondent was incorrect. The name of the Director was used who was the Complainant’s line manager was used instead of the limited company. Where there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent, there was no consent to amend it. However, where it was clear that the Complainant at all times intended to bring the complaint against his former employer and the correct name was not in dispute. Consequently, it is decided the named was amended accordingly.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he worked as a builder with the Respondent until November 2020. However, upon the untimely passing of the Director, his worked ceased. The Complainant gave evidence that he did receive severance pay at the conclusion of his employment nor did he receive his public holidays for the year 2020. He subsequently accepted, he worked on public holidays and was paid accordingly.

It was his evidence that he was unsure of where to go to claim his entitlements but had been in contact with the Revenue Commissioners. He accepted he had taken a personal injury claim against the Respondent which concluded in 2023. 

There was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent.

However, there was an appearance by the Joint – Executor, Ms Murphy, of the estate of the deceased director of Respondent.  

It was submitted that the complaint fell outside the time limit provided for in the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

The time limits for entertaining a complaint by the Workplace Relations Commission are set out in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015:-

“(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.”

Where there is reasonable cause, the time limit may be extended up to 12 months.

The complaint relates to the Complainant’s employment which ceased in November 2020. The Complaint Form was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 8 October 2023, almost three years after the termination date. Consequently, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission.

For this reason,  I find the complaint is not well founded.

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Time