ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058027
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Donie Copse | Elm Fire Places |
Representatives | Self-represented | John Monaghan BL instructed by Sarah Skelly, O’Callaghan Daly Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00070452-001 | 01/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that the Adjudication Officers have the power to administer an oath or affirmation. The legal perils of committing perjury were explained. All participants who gave evidence were sworn in. The parties were offered the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence.
The parties were also advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the generic terms of ‘Complainant’ and ‘Respondent’ are used throughout the body of the decision.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the submissions and evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective positions of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or found superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held
“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
I am required to set out “such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision” per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63.
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
The Complainant was self-represented. He was accompanied by his wife.
The Respondent was represented by Mr John Monaghan BL instructed by Ms Sarah Skelly of O’Callaghan Daly Solicitors.
Background:
The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 17 August 2015. On 1 April 2025, the Complainant referred his complaint to the Director General of the WRC pursuant to section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.
The Respondent rejects the claim. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complaint alleged that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms and condition of employment in breach of the Act. The Complainant furnished a written submission wherein he outlined several matters such as his concerns regarding 45 hour working week; alleged use of inappropriate language by the Director of the Respondent in 2023; and an alleged failure to pay for his medical expenses in relation to a knee injury he suffered in 2022. At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant gave sworn evidence confirming that he received a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment on 21 December 2021. He also received an updated statement on 26 October 2022. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent raised a preliminary matter of time limits. Mr Monaghan BL, on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the Complainant accepted that he had received his written statement in 2021. It was asserted no evidence was given that the Respondent did not comply with the Act. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, as amended sets out the basic terms of employment which an employer must provide to an employee in written format. There was no dispute that the Complainant was furnished with a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment which was signed on behalf of the Respondent on 22 December 2021. There was also no dispute that an updated statement signed on behalf of the Respondent on 24 October 2022 was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant acknowledged the receipt of the statement and signed the document on 26 October 2022. The Complainant referred his complaint to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Act on 1 April 2025. Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (as amended) states: “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.” Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (as amended) provides that if a complaint is not submitted within six months of the alleged contravention, an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum time limit of 12 months where, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in accordance with the provisions: “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.” By application of the time limit provided for at section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 the cognisable period for the purpose of this claim is confined to the six-month period ending on the date on which the complaint was presented to the WRC. Therefore, the cognisable period covered by the complaint is the six-month period from 2 October 2024 to 1 April 2025. In circumstances where the Complainant was furnished with a written statement on 22 December 2021, I am satisfied that the twelve-month period commencing on this date ends on 21 December 2022. Therefore, as the instant complaint was referred to the Director General of the WRC on 1 April 2025, it is also clearly outside of the extended period of twelve months as provided for in section 41(8) of the Act. Therefore, even if the extension was sought by the Complainant and granted, his complainant would not have been lodged within the time limits imposed by section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as amended. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I declare this complaint to be not well founded. |
Dated: 8th September 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
Terms pf employment – time limits |