ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058446
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mohamed Abdullahi Hussein | Manguard Plus Limited |
Representatives | Self Represented | Joe Bolger ESA Consultants |
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-00070959-001 | 19/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following 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.
This matter was heard 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. In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Hearing too place completely in public.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Security Officer. He submitted a complaint to the WRC on April 19th 2025 that he was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant stated in the WRC complaint form that he was dismissed on January 15th 2025. The Respondent stated in its pre Hearing submission the termination took place by letter effective May 14th 2025 and provided a copy of the termination letter. There was no evidence to contradict the Respondents stated date of dismissal and this dismissal date was accepted by the Complainant. The complaint form was submitted to the WRC on April 19th 2025,, which was prior to the dismissal. The Adjudicator, having reviewed the file in advance of the Hearing advised the parties on October 15th 2025 by letter that there may be an issue with jurisdiction and advised the issue could be dealt with at the scheduled Hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides: “(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.” My interpretation of the above is that a complaint must be submitted after a contravention has taken place and not before. The Adjudicator has decided that it is much more prudent to dismiss the complaint as stature barred and allow the Complainant the opportunity to resubmit the claim before the expiry of six months form the date of the dismissal. The Parties understood and accepted this logic. I therefor determine that the complaint is statute barred but nothing in this Decision prevents the Complainant from submitting a complaint within the time frames set out by the Act. The Complainant is a foreign national and he was advised that the normal date to resubmit such a claim to the WRC would expire on November 13th 2025. The Complainant had advised he had limited English shortly in advance of the Hearing (the WRC could not find an Interpreter at the short notice of his native language) but the Complainant confirmed to the Adjudicator on two occasions that he understood what was said at the Hearing and what his options were. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute.
I find that the complaint was submitted in advance of the contravention and is statue barred. |
Dated: 23/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal |