ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052339
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Colm O Reilly | Mixers Sauces Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Annalee Brazel Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
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-00064048-001 | 11/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and a witness for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. At the start of the hearing a preliminary point was raised by the respondent in respect of the complainant’s length of service and qualifying periods under the Act |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant confirmed that he started employment with the respondent on 28 November 2022 and was dismissed on 17 November 2023 with one weeks’ notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the complainant did not have the length of service required to avail of the protections of the Act. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant confirmed that he started employment with the respondent on 28 November 2022 and was dismissed on 17 November 2023 with one weeks’ notice. He stated however that he was still employed after 28 November 2023 but that he did not have the documentation to prove that with him. He was permitted to submit the documentation within a week. He was informed that in the absence of such documentation, that the documentation presented in advance of the hearing by both parties only supported the respondent’s contention that he had less than the year of service required under the Act. The complainant did not submit any documentation supporting his contention that he had more than one year’s service with the respondent. Section 2(1)(a) of Unfair Dismissals Act states that 2.—(1) 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 (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him …, As regards the evidence presented by both parties, I find that the complainant does not have the requisite service to avail of the protections of 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.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant does not have the length of service required by the Act to avail of the protections of the Act. |
Dated: 24-09-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissals Act – length of service requirements – cannot avail of the protections of the Act |