ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056806

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Customer Assistant	A Supermarket

Representatives

Self Represented

Employee Relations Manager

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-00068787-001	22/01/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/08/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

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.

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 and the required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties. Full cross examination of Witnesses was allowed

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a Supermarket Customer Assistant and submitted a complaint that he had been unfairly dismissed.. The Complainant has a stammer and supplied details of his medicine and condition and I have decided, that due to these special circumstances to anonymize the decision.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant was employed from April 6th 2022 until June 27th 2024.

The Complainant submitted his complaint on December 29th 2024. The Respondent objected to the Adjudicator dealing with the substantive complaint on the basis the complaint was submitted out of time and sought a decision on the preliminary matter to avoid time and cost.

The cognisable period for the complaint commenced on June 27th 2024 and ended on December 26th 2024. The Complaint was submitted on December 29th 2024 and therefore was out of time.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 states;

(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.

(8) 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.

The complaint was submitted out of time and the Complainant sought an extension of time on the basis of reasonable cause. The Complainant submitted that he was on medicine during the period of six months after he left the employment and details of two prescribed medicines were supplied to the Hearing. He also stated he was depressed after his employment ceased and he had no energy. The Complainant had no medical evidence to support these statements.

The elements of test to be applied with regard to issues regarding delays were set in the Cementation Skanska v. Carroll DWT0338 case which stated;

‘It is clear from the authorities that the test places the onus on the applicant for an extension of time to identify the reason for the delay and to establish that the reason relied upon provides a justifiable excuse for the actual delay. Secondly, the onus is on the applicant to establish a causal connection between the reason proffered for the delay and his or her failure to present the complaint in time. Thirdly, the Court must be satisfied, as a matter of probability, that the Complainant would have presented the complaint in time were it not for the intervention of factors relied upon as constituting reasonable cause. It is the actual delay that must be explained and justified’.

Having considered the matter I do not see that the Complainants grounds for him not submitting the complaint amount to a reasonable cause to justify an extension of time for the consideration of this complaint and I deem it out of time and that I have no statutory power to issue a decision on the substantive complaint.

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 complaint was submitted out of time and I have no statutory power to investigate the substantial complaint.

Dated: 05-09-2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Key Words:

Unfair Dismissal