ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057492
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Treacy O Neill | The School Food Company |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Mr. Barry Walsh, instructed by ARAG Legal Protection Limited |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00069172-001 | 10/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 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.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment wit the Respondent on 31st May 2024. The Complainant was a temporary, full-time member of staff. The Complainant’s employment ended approximately seven months later, on 15th January 2025. On 10th February 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the conduct of the Respondent was such that she was entitled to resign and consider herself to be constructively dismissed. While the Respondent was prepared to defend this complaint on its merits, they submitted that the Complainant did not have adequate service to bring a complaint under the Act. A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for 29th August 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. As set out above, the Respondent raised a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction at the outset of the hearing. As this matter may be determinative of the entirety of the proceedings, it will be considered in advance of the substantive matter, |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case as to the Preliminary Point:
In answer to a question posed by the Adjudicator, the Complainant confirmed she had approximately seven months service with the Respondent. The Complainant accepted that a party must ordinarily have one year’s service prior to bringing a complaint under the impleaded legislation. The Complainant did not seek to rely on any of the exemptions to this requirement as set out in the legislation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case as to the Preliminary Point:
By submission, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant did not enjoy the protections of the Act as she did not meet the service requirements. Notwithstanding the same, they submitted that they were willing to meet the substantive complaint should it be required. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Regarding the present complaint, it is common case that the Complainant has less than one year’s service with the Respondent. In this regard Section 2(1) of the Act provides that, “Except in so far as any provision of this Act otherwise provides this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons: (a) an employee…who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service…” As the Complainant accept that she did not have one year of continuous service, it is apparent that the exclusion listed above will apply and she will not have standing to being a 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 the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Act. |
Dated: 31-10-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Continuous service, Section 2, Preliminary Issue |