Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Justyna  Giallombardo

Abtran Unlimited

Representatives

 IBEC

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-00072580-001

19/06/2025

The Complainant gave her evidence on Affirmaton. Submissions and documentation were received and relied upon during the hearing.   

Ms Ava Fitzgerald, Senior HR Business Partner with the Respondent, gave evidence on Affirmation.

Documentation and submissions were also received from the Respondent and relied upon at the hearing of the complaint.

The Complainant raised the timing of the Respondent’s submission. The Respondent stated it was having difficulties uploading the large file. Upon inquiry the Complainant confirmed she had read the submission and the hearing proceeded.

The Respondent raised a preliminary issue on the timing of the referral of the Complainant’s complaint where it was outside the time limit provided in the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

The Complainant was afforded time to submit her medical evidence which was received on 27 March 2026. The Respondent filed its response on 4 April 2026.  

It was the Complainant’s evidence that she had a feeling that the Respondent did not want her back to work after her long-term sick leave from its correspondence and failure to respond to her queries. She further stated that the Respondent refused to accommodate the carry over her annual leave accumulated during sick leave, all of which resulted in constructive dismissal.

Preliminary Objection

It was the Complainant’s evidence that due to her health difficulties that she was unable to file and run two hearings at the same time where she had submitted a separate complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission under a separate head of claim which was hard in April 2025 and a decision, ADJ-00055061 which issued in July 2025. It was her evidence that the this was an administrative burden on her. It was her evidence that her ongoing medical condition was reasonable cause to extend time.

She further added that the Organisation of Working Time complaint was less complicated than the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 complaint.

Upon inquiry the Complainant was asked if she had any medical evidence to support the delay in submitting her complaint. Where this was not available the hearing time was allowed for its submission in the interest of fairness.

A medical certificate was presented on 27 March 2026 which notes she received treatment from May 2023 until June 2025.

Ms Fitzgerald gave evidence and denied the complaint in full, stating the Complainant resigned in heist and did not submit a grievance

Preliminary Objection

It was the Respondent’s submission that the Complaint Form was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission over 5 months after the 6-month period had passed and therefore, was out of time.

She was capable of running a case as per the ADJ-00055061

It was submitted that the Complainant accepted she was in contact with the Workplace Relations Commission during this time along with the Free Legal Aid Centre (FLAC).

Cementation Skanska v Carroll, DWT 38/2003 was relied upon by the Respondent along with Beasley v National Grid [2008] EWCA Civ 742 (UK Ct of Appeal) where even an 88‑second delay was not excused, and they say the same strict approach should apply here.

The Respondent submitted the Complainant has not shown such cause.

In response to the Complainant’s medical certificate, the Respondent provided further submissions. In summary, the Respondent relied upon the following timeline

·       26 June 2024: The Claimant resigned from her employment.

·       03 November 2024: The Claimant submitted her Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 complaint to the WRC.

·       29 April 2025: The Claimant proceeded with her Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claim before the WRC.

·       19 June 2025: The Claimant submitted her Unfair Dismissal complaint to the WRC.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s medical evidence did not show that she had been unable to lodge her claim in time and added that she could have filed the claim and sought an adjournment or proceeded by written submissions.

The Respondent also submitted that the medical documents she later provided were contradictory, pointing to earlier records indicating that she had been fit to return to work in May 2024 and had attended her GP in June 2024 for a further fit to work certificate.

Finally, the Respondent relied upon evidence presented at the hearing of teaching work she understood during the period covered by the medical certificate which further demonstrates she was fit to refer to complaint to the WRC. 

Preliminary Objection

Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) within the time frame provide for in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The period of time may be extended to 12 months where the Complainant can demonstrate reasonable cause.

The Complainant claimed that she was forced to resign from her position as a Call Centre Operative on 26 June 2024 due to the conduct of the Respondent.

The Complainant made a referral under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to the Workplace Relations Commission on 3 November 2024. This complaint was heard on 29 April 2025 and a decision issued in July 2025.

On 19 June 2025, she submitted her second complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.

It is accepted that this complaint was submitted outside the 6‑month period provided for in Section 41(6) of the WRC Act by over five months.

It was submitted by the Complainant at the hearing that, due to her medical condition, she had been under treatment from May 2023 to June 2025, and supporting medical evidence was later filed.

Having carefully considered the medical evidence and submissions, it is clear that the Complainant was under the care of her treating doctors during the period in which she initiated the first complaint and during the hearing, which she successfully argued as a lay litigant. There is no detail or opinion in the medical certificates indicating that she was incapacitated from filing a complaint during this period.

This is further considered in light of her Complaint Form, which noted that she “made the decision to proceed first with a complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.” This clearly indicates that she had formed the intention to initiate a further complaint at that time but decided not to pursue it—the complaint that is the subject of this decision.

Relying on the Respondent’s submission, it is accepted that she had a medical certificate stating she was fit to return to work in June 2024, and that she engaged in teaching English from October 2024 onwards.

Finally, it is not accepted that the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 complaint was the “easier” option of the two complaints. It required a forensic analysis of dates and the application of the legislation.

In conclusion, it is clear that the Complainant, in initiating this complaint, was seeking a second bite of the cherry.

For this reason, I decline jurisdiction to decide on the substantive matter.

Section 41 (6) 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.”

The period of time may be extended to 12 months where the Complainant can demonstrate reasonable cause.

The Complainant claimed she was forced to resign from her position as a Call Centre Operative on 26 June 2024 due to the conduct of the Respondent.

The Complainant made a referral under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to the Workplace Relations Commission on 3 November 2024 which was heard on 29 April 2025 and a decision issued in July 2025.  

On 19 June 2025, she submitted her second complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.

It is accepted that this complaint outside the 6-month period provided in Section 41(6) of the WRC Act by over 5 months.

It was submitted by the Complainant at the hearing that due to her medical condition she was under treatment from May 2023 to June 2025 and later filed medical evidence was presented to support this.

Having carefully considered the medical evidence and submission it is clear that the Complainant was under the care of her treating doctors during the period she initiated the first complaint and during the hearing which she successfully argued as a lay litigant. There is no detail or opinion in the medical certificate as to her incapacity to file a complaint during this period.

This is further considered in light of her Complaint Form noting she “made the decision to proceed first with a complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997” which clearly indicates that she had formed the intention to initiate a further complaint at this time but decided not to pursue this complaint, the subject matter of this decision.

Relying on the Respondent’s submission, it is accepted that she had a medical certificate stating she was fit tor return to work in June 2024 and she engaged in teach English from October 2024 onwards.

Finally, it is not accepted that the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 complaint was the “easier” option in terms of her two complaints. It required a forensic analysis of dates and application of the legislation.

In conclusion, it is clear that the Complainant, in initiating this complaint, was seeking a second bite of the cherry.  

For this reason, I decline jurisdiction to decide on the substantive matter.

For the reasons outlined above, I find the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.