CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 41 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00058808 issued on 29/10/2025 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058808
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Catherine Joseph | Central Statistics Office |
Representatives | Self | Mark Lyons, CSO HR |
Complaint:
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-00071471-001 | 09/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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 matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
The Complainant attended the hearing and represented herself. The Respondent was represented by Mr Mark Lyons, HR, Ms Caitriona O’Leary, Head of CSO Recruitment Team, Ms David Griffin, Head of Field Administration and Ms Fiona Slater, Field Coordinator and Interview Board Member.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Ms Catherine Joseph as “the Complainant” and to the Central Statistics Office (CSO) as “the Respondent.”
The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant was interviewed for the role of Survey Interviewer by the Respondent. This took place on 22/05/2024. The Complainant was placed 1st on the panel for permanent vacancies in the area in which she resides. The Complainant stated in her application that she was only interested in a permanent role. There was a total of three candidates placed on the panel for the area and one candidate on the temporary panel. Since the panel was formed only one temporary candidate was appointed. No permanent vacancies have arisen in the area to date. The Complainant remains on the permanent panel and will be considered for appointment when a suitable permanent vacancy arises. It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant was not treated any differently to any other candidate and therefore no discrimination as defined by the Employment Equality Acts has occurred. The Complainant was interviewed for the role and was successful. She was told that she would have to wait as there was no job available. She was distressed when told that she was placed on the permanent panel and she felt that she was offered a role and would begin work immediately. Her access to the CSO recruitment portal was blocked and she was never contacted by the CSO. For the next six months she tried to call and receive email clarifications but her communications were ignored. The Complainant believes that she was subjected to discrimination on the grounds of race, contrary to the Employment Equality Acts in relation to access to employment. It is the Complainant’s position that she was successful at interview and offered the position but the offer was withdrawn without explanation and her access to the CSO portal was deliberately blocked. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC on 09/05/2025 in which she alleges that she was discriminated against on the race ground by the Respondent. The Complainant attended an interview on 22/05/2024 for a Survey Interviewer. Following this interview, she was informed that she was successful and offered the role. She was not contacted again and her calls were not followed up. She feels that the only plausible explanation for the withdrawal of the offer is that she was subjected to racial discrimination. It is the Complainant’s position that she attended the interview in good faith, was assured that she would begin work immediately if successful and yet she was not given the job and her efforts to seek clarification were ignored for more than a year. The Complainant explained that she delayed submitting her complaint to the WRC as she wanted to sort this out with the CSO directly. It is the Complainant’s submission that as she was making serous efforts to resolve the matter without recourse to the WRC that this constitutes reasonable grounds for the granting of an extension of time. The Complainant submits that the fact that the CSO stated that they do have records confirming all her contacts was contradicted when then acknowledged that she left a voice mail and also an email. As the Complainant was not represented the Adjudication Officer explained the relevance of the preliminary points raised by the Respondent. The Complainant also confirmed that she understood that a decision would be made by the Adjudication Officer in relation to the preliminary point regarding the timeframe and this would determine the position in relation to hearing the substantive matter. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent raised a preliminary issue in relation to the jurisdiction of the WRC to hear this complaint. The facts are that the Complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC on 09/05/2025. This period of time is so significant that the complaint is statute barred for the purposes of the Act and therefore the WRC has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The Respondent submits that it was the Complainant’s responsibility to submit the complaint on time or at the very least within a reasonably speedy timeframe. The Respondent submits that the Complainant had not discharged the burden of proof that reasonable cause exists for an extension to the six-month deadline and accordingly, this case must fail. The Respondent submits that as this case is clearly out of time and therefore the Adjudication Officer does not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The Respondent agreed that the substantive case should not proceed until this matter is determined. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is well established that an Adjudication Officer or tribunal may determine preliminary issues before proceeding to the substantive merits of a complaint. The rationale for this approach is rooted in principles of procedural fairness and efficiency, ensuring that jurisdictional or admissibility questions are resolved before substantive rights are adjudicated. Under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, an Adjudication Officer is empowered to inquire into a complaint or dispute properly before them. However, this jurisdiction only arises where the complaint meets the statutory conditions of admissibility, including compliance with time limits under the relevant employment legislation (for example, section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 or section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015). Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act (2015) states: “Subject to subsection (8), and 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”. Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act (2015) also states: “An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause”. Where a Respondent raises a preliminary objection—such as a complaint being lodged outside the statutory timeframe—the Adjudication Officer must first determine this issue. If the complaint is found to be out of time and no reasonable cause for extension exists, the complaint cannot lawfully proceed to a substantive hearing. The practice of determining preliminary issues separately is consistent with judicial and quasi-judicial procedure. In Shell E&P Ireland Ltd v McGrath & Anor [2013] IEHC 218, the High Court affirmed that it is both permissible and appropriate to decide preliminary issues where they may dispose of the case or clarify jurisdiction. Similarly, in A Worker v A Retail Chain (ADJ-00008991, WRC, 2018), the Adjudication Officer held that consideration of the time limit under section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Acts was a preliminary matter. Only after determining that the complaint was in time did the officer proceed to hear the substantive discrimination claim. It is a fundamental requirement of fair procedure that both parties understand the nature of any preliminary issue and have an opportunity to make submissions before a determination is made. In this context, where a Complainant is unrepresented, the Adjudication Officer must ensure that the Complainant understands (i) the significance of the preliminary point, (ii) the potential consequences of the decision, and (iii) that no substantive issues will be addressed unless the preliminary matter is resolved in their favour. I am satisfied with the assurances given by the Respondent and the Complainant that they understood and supported this approach. Accordingly, it is both procedurally appropriate and legally necessary for an Adjudication Officer to determine a preliminary matter—such as the admissibility or timeliness of a complaint—before proceeding to the substantive hearing. This approach safeguards the integrity of the adjudicative process, ensures compliance with statutory jurisdiction, and upholds the principles of natural justice for all parties. The facts of this case are that the Complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC on 09/05/2025 and she has confirmed on that form that the most recent date of discrimination was 22/05/2024. That means that the complainant was submitted to the WRC eleven months and seventeen days after the last alleged date of discrimination. The case of Cementation Skanska v Carroll, DWT0338, where the Court outlined the test by stating: “It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the Complainant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say that it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the Complainant at the material time. The Complainant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the Complainant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time”. It is clear that the complaint in this case falls not only outside a period of six months close to the twelve-month extension period. In view of the foregoing, I find that this claim was referred outside of the time limit set out in section 24(1) of the 1967 Act and I am not satisfied that the failure to refer the claim within time was due to reasonable cause. Consequently, I have no jurisdiction to hear and consider this complaint. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00071471-001: Complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I have decided that I have no jurisdiction to hear and consider this complaint. |
Dated: 29th October 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Time limit. |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058808
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Catherine Joseph | Central Statistics Office |
Representatives | Self | David Lyons, CSO HR |
Complaint:
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-00071471-001 | 09/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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 matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
The Complainant attended the hearing and represented herself. The Respondent was represented by Mr Mark Lyons, HR, Ms Caitriona O’Leary, Head of CSO Recruitment Team, Ms David Griffin, Head of Field Administration and Ms Fiona Slater, Field Coordinator and Interview Board Member.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Ms Catherine Joseph as “the Complainant” and to the Central Statistics Office (CSO) as “the Respondent.”
The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant was interviewed for the role of Survey Interviewer by the Respondent. This took place on 22/05/2024. The Complainant was placed 1st on the panel for permanent vacancies in the area in which she resides. The Complainant stated in her application that she was only interested in a permanent role. There was a total of three candidates placed on the panel for the area and one candidate on the temporary panel. Since the panel was formed only one temporary candidate was appointed. No permanent vacancies have arisen in the area to date. The Complainant remains on the permanent panel and will be considered for appointment when a suitable permanent vacancy arises. It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant was not treated any differently to any other candidate and therefore no discrimination as defined by the Employment Equality Acts has occurred. The Complainant was interviewed for the role and was successful. She was told that she would have to wait as there was no job available. She was distressed when told that she was placed on the permanent panel and she felt that she was offered a role and would begin work immediately. Her access to the CSO recruitment portal was blocked and she was never contacted by the CSO. For the next six months she tried to call and receive email clarifications but her communications were ignored. The Complainant believes that she was subjected to discrimination on the grounds of race, contrary to the Employment Equality Acts in relation to access to employment. It is the Complainant’s position that she was successful at interview and offered the position but the offer was withdrawn without explanation and her access to the CSO portal was deliberately blocked. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC on 09/05/2025 in which she alleges that she was discriminated against on the race ground by the Respondent. The Complainant attended an interview on 22/05/2024 for a Survey Interviewer. Following this interview, she was informed that she was successful and offered the role. She was not contacted again and her calls were not followed up. She feels that the only plausible explanation for the withdrawal of the offer is that she was subjected to racial discrimination. It is the Complainant’s position that she attended the interview in good faith, was assured that she would begin work immediately if successful and yet she was not given the job and her efforts to seek clarification were ignored for more than a year. The Complainant explained that she delayed submitting her complaint to the WRC as she wanted to sort this out with the CSO directly. It is the Complainant’s submission that as she was making serous efforts to resolve the matter without recourse to the WRC that this constitutes reasonable grounds for the granting of an extension of time. The Complainant submits that the fact that the CSO stated that they do have records confirming all her contacts was contradicted when then acknowledged that she left a voice mail and also an email. As the Complainant was not represented the Adjudication Officer explained the relevance of the preliminary points raised by the Respondent. The Complainant also confirmed that she understood that a decision would be made by the Adjudication Officer in relation to the preliminary point regarding the timeframe and this would determine the position in relation to hearing the substantive matter. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent raised a preliminary issue in relation to the jurisdiction of the WRC to hear this complaint. The facts are that the Complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC on 09/05/2025. This period of time is so significant that the complaint is statute barred for the purposes of the Act and therefore the WRC has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The Respondent submits that it was the Complainant’s responsibility to submit the complaint on time or at the very least within a reasonably speedy timeframe. The Respondent submits that the Complainant had not discharged the burden of proof that reasonable cause exists for an extension to the six-month deadline and accordingly, this case must fail. The Respondent submits that as this case is clearly out of time and therefore the Adjudication Officer does not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The Respondent agreed that the substantive case should not proceed until this matter is determined. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is well established that an Adjudication Officer or tribunal may determine preliminary issues before proceeding to the substantive merits of a complaint. The rationale for this approach is rooted in principles of procedural fairness and efficiency, ensuring that jurisdictional or admissibility questions are resolved before substantive rights are adjudicated. Under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, an Adjudication Officer is empowered to inquire into a complaint or dispute properly before them. However, this jurisdiction only arises where the complaint meets the statutory conditions of admissibility, including compliance with time limits under the relevant employment legislation (for example, section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 or section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015). Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act (2015) states: “Subject to subsection (8), and 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”. Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act (2015) also states: “An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause”. Where a Respondent raises a preliminary objection—such as a complaint being lodged outside the statutory timeframe—the Adjudication Officer must first determine this issue. If the complaint is found to be out of time and no reasonable cause for extension exists, the complaint cannot lawfully proceed to a substantive hearing. The practice of determining preliminary issues separately is consistent with judicial and quasi-judicial procedure. In Shell E&P Ireland Ltd v McGrath & Anor [2013] IEHC 218, the High Court affirmed that it is both permissible and appropriate to decide preliminary issues where they may dispose of the case or clarify jurisdiction. Similarly, in A Worker v A Retail Chain (ADJ-00008991, WRC, 2018), the Adjudication Officer held that consideration of the time limit under section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Acts was a preliminary matter. Only after determining that the complaint was in time did the officer proceed to hear the substantive discrimination claim. It is a fundamental requirement of fair procedure that both parties understand the nature of any preliminary issue and have an opportunity to make submissions before a determination is made. In this context, where a Complainant is unrepresented, the Adjudication Officer must ensure that the Complainant understands (i) the significance of the preliminary point, (ii) the potential consequences of the decision, and (iii) that no substantive issues will be addressed unless the preliminary matter is resolved in their favour. I am satisfied with the assurances given by the Respondent and the Complainant that they understood and supported this approach. Accordingly, it is both procedurally appropriate and legally necessary for an Adjudication Officer to determine a preliminary matter—such as the admissibility or timeliness of a complaint—before proceeding to the substantive hearing. This approach safeguards the integrity of the adjudicative process, ensures compliance with statutory jurisdiction, and upholds the principles of natural justice for all parties. The facts of this case are that the Complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC on 09/07/2024 and she has confirmed on that form that the most recent date of discrimination was 22/05/2024. That means that the complainant was submitted to the WRC eleven months and seventeen days after the last alleged date of discrimination. The case of Cementation Skanska v Carroll, DWT0338, where the Court outlined the test by stating: “It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the Complainant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say that it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the Complainant at the material time. The Complainant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the Complainant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time”. It is clear that the complaint in this case falls not only outside a period of six months close to the twelve-month extension period. In view of the foregoing, I find that this claim was referred outside of the time limit set out in section 24(1) of the 1967 Act and I am not satisfied that the failure to refer the claim within time was due to reasonable cause. Consequently, I have no jurisdiction to hear and consider this complaint. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00071471-001: Complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I have decided that I have no jurisdiction to hear and consider this complaint. |
Dated: 29th October 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Time limit. |