ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00058462

Parties:

Complaint

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  03/03/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 & 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.

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 normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.

The required Oath / Affirmation was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.

No issue regarding confidentiality arose.

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.

Opening Legal Issue / Question of Jurisdiction of WRC.

At the opening of the Hearing the Respondent queried the proper jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer to hear the case -citing Section 41 (6) & Section 41 (8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.

After hearing arguments, the Adjudication Officer indicted that he would consider the jurisdiction arguments and issue a preliminary finding.

 1:1        Respondent Arguments

The date of dismissal was the 27th September 2024. The Complaint was referred to the WRC on the 20th April 2026 - some 6 months and 24 days later.

Section 41(6) & (7) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides as follows.

(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

Underlined by Adjudication Officer.

The Respondent argued that the Complaint was clearly in breach of Sub Section 6, being in excess of six months and there was no “reasonable cause” advanced to qualify for a further extension of six months as provided for in Sub Section 8.

In a post Hearing submission, copied to the Complainant for comment, (both on the 19th March 2025) the Respondent queried the Complainant reasons given as “severe emotional trauma” & “Unforeseen technical issues on the WRC Website”. The suggestion of medical/psychological matters was not supported by any adequate Medical evidence.

The Respondent relied on the landmark case of Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT 0338, Murphy v Citizens Information Call Centre Ltd UD59/2005 and DCC v Skelly DWT212 in support of the medical point and the general time limits issue.

The Respondent Submission was that the complaint was “out of time” and should be deemed not within the proper jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer.

1:2         Complainant Arguments

The Complainant argued that post the dismissal her mental well being had been challenging for her. It took her a considerable time to recover her self-confidence . It was only at the suggestion of her counsellor and some concerned friends that she had finally gathered up the courage to lodge a complaint at the WRC.

On the date of the 28th March 2025 , her first attempt to lodge the Complaint the WRC Website had refused her system Access. She had then lodged her Complaint on the 20th April 2025.

Notwithstanding the WRC technical issue ,which was outside her control, her entire Psychological trauma post the dismissal had had such a profound effect on her that a delay was completely understandable . Section 41(8) - Reasonable cause -  was clearly applicable. The case was proper for Adjudication.

1:3         Adjudication view

1:3:1      The Legal Position

The legislative position is set out clearly above in the sections quoted 41 (6 & 8 ) above from the Workplace Relations Act,2015.

Case law cited included Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT 0338 , Murphy v Citizens Information Call Centre Ltd UD59/2005 and DCC v Skelly DWT212

The bottom line here is that temporal Deadlines are exactly that - Deadlines.  The Labour Court discussed this point extensively in Cementation Skanska.

To quote

“It is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd.”

However all cases rest on their own factual evidential matrix and this must be examined next.

1:3:2      Examination of the Evidence presented both Orally and in Writing.

Taking the first issue – the alleged WRC IT Systems issues on the 28th of March 2025 - a Friday.

The “Unauthorized Access” Message is somewhat unclear but appears to be date stamped as 00:02 hrs on the 28/03/2025 – early Friday morning.

This would make it 6 months and I ( one ) day since the dismissal.

Adjudication Officer queries with the internal WRC IT Department reported that there were no System issues, such as to prevent a complaint being lodged,  on IT Records for that time frame.

Common sense reasoning would indicate that if there was an issue then a Telephone call/e mail to the WRC Help Desk later on Friday morning would have been advisable. It appears that there is no record of any such calls.

Suffice to say that the Complainant then waited until the 20th April 2025 ( 23 days later) to again lodge her complaint. The Labour Court has often referred to the need to have displayed “urgency” when seeking a Sub Section 41(8) extension.  23 days does not suggest any urgency.

Regarding the Medical arguments as regards Mental trauma/ Psychological issues the evidence was slight – a GP note. The Respondent pointed out that they had no opportunity to have any medical evidence challenged by Medical experts on their side.

In Written Evidence the Respondent stated ,under Oath, that the Complainant had acted as a National level Judge at a National Competition on the 23rd March 2025. These types of Competitions are often quite strenuous all day occasions. They cited the Social Media profile of the Complainant as supporting evidence.  The reasonable question raised by the Respondent was why did the Complainant delay to the 27/28 March to lodge her complaint if she was clearly fully fit to act as a judge in a National Competition 5 days earlier.

1:3:3      Adjudication Conclusion.

Having reviewed and considered all the evidence presented the Adjudication view has to be that the Complaint is “Out of time” . 

There was no convincing evidence for a the delay to the 28th March and additionally no evidence to explain the further delay to the 20th April 2025.

Accordingly the Complaint cannot proceed as the Adjudication officer has no proper jurisdiction.

2:        Findings and Conclusions:

3:        Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 & Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.

CA: 00070969-001

The Complaint does not satisfy he requirements of Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act . It is legally Not Properly Founded and cannot proceed.

Dated:   14-08-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Michael McEntee

Key Words: