ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055609
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Team Leader Care Organisation | Healthcare |
Representatives | self | ARAG Legal Protection Limited |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00067820-001 | 02/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
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. The parties have been anonymised as sensitive medical information has been disclosed during the hearing and investigation of the complaint.
Background:
The Respondent made a preliminary application for the matter to be dismissed as it was lodged out of time.
The Complainant worked in a social care team lead role with this Respondent.
She left her employment after 6 weeks.
She alleges that her work experience was very stressful arising from her own disability and chronic pain which had not been disclosed to her employer prior to joining the organisation. During her period of employment, she raised several concerns about client welfare and poor work practices. The following details some of the Complainant’s concerns as detailed in her resignation letter about food quality for clients and being asked to use her own car as transport for the centre’s clients:
Hi redacted
Further to the email earlier please find attached documents referenced and reasons for resignation. I will not be returning to delted.
- i am registered as disabled. it was my choice to keep this private and cope within my contract which i have fulfilled each day fully however this has caused me due to other issues to resign. I coped privately with the pain issues from work in addition to already chronic pain but could not cope with ancillary issues arising which caused stress and anxiety which i felt to be unnecessary. At no point should i have had and never have had to address similar issues in other organisations such as de paul, dublin simon or DV roles. I will address the particular issues.
- within a couple of weeks with deleted I identified what i considered to be care issues, unsure of the organisation i raised this with HR and not with the managers in house. I was called to a meeting. At this meeting the first part was spent defending the approach i took in contacting HR. I withstood this and said I would take any consequences but i stood over my approach. i raised food sufficiency, quality and budget issues as well as transparency and training issues (doc. attached). I was told the incidents in the kitchen were not okay, the budget would be raised for the 2 full time and 1 part time adult in the house and that my concerns were raised as a grievance. Despite the whistle blowing poster on the wall of the office i received a) zero support for raising those issues despite stating how much angst this had caused me in the days proceeding and how I could not overlook the food issue even if i could understand other issues. b) at no point can i agree that full disclosure/utter transparency to guardians on all and every issue is not appropriate.
Subsequently i did not see the budget being raised, the new manager confirmed emphatically that the budget was 70 after the meeting and i frankly did not know where to turn As far as i am concerned this remains a concern issue which i will seek further external advice on.
Cars: before i had received a pay check i was asked to check my insurance for carrying service users. I was uncomfortable at this but did it particularly as this would raise road worthiness and maintenance obligations to service users. .
I am angry that i have to address my personal issues publicly due to what i feel are care concerns, lack of support around those and unreasonable demands in work and must now seek medical intervention and support to re establish some well being as well and cope with the ensuing stress all in a very short time frame with your company.
I had considered constructive dismissal but i will be taking advice on all of the above. It is not possible for me to continue with yourselves. A simple one line letter confirming my disability can be done and unfitness to continue given the above. An appointment is made with my G.P. for that if required.
Redacted signature
The Respondent denies and disputes the Complainant’s complaint(s) and generally denies and disputes all and any matters complained of and/ or cited by the Complainant in the WRC Complaint Form dated 2 nd December 2024 or otherwise. The date of filing the complaint with the Commission was the 2nd of December 2024.
The date of termination of employment was the 8th of April 2024 which means the filing is outside of the 6 months’ time limit to file her complaint. On the date of filing a solicitor was on record who subsequently came off record.
The delay it is alleged occurred because of chronic pain and this is the cause of the delay. It is argued by the Complainant that time should be extended because reasonable cause has been provided.
The Respondent takes issue with the explanation and stated that the Complainant has demonstrated sufficient capacity to engage with them and a solicitor during the relevant time period and her explanation is not reasonable.
The Respondent at the hearing moved to have the claim struck out for being out of time. The Complainant as a lay litigant was asked if she wished for the hearing to proceed allowing for the late submission by the Respondent and the Complainant asked that it proceed. The Complainant was asked if she required any reasonable accommodation during the hearing and none was required. The Complainant was asked if she was medically fit to present her case and she stated she was. The Complainant was afforded an opportunity to submit any case law to complement her case relating to reasonable cause and declined. The Complainant’s request for correspondence between her and a previous employer was accepted to be opened as evidence of her incapacity and to be placed on file after the hearing. The Respondent while mentioning that no medical evidence was before the parties about the Complainant’s disability; when asked if they were seeking a medical opinion, stated that they were not seeking a medical opinion from the Complainant The parties were provided with a period of four weeks to exchange any documentation about the preliminary application about time limits and to reply. After 4 weeks the preliminary application will be decided. The Respondent stated that the Complainant had the benefit of legal advice during the relevant period, commuted to work during the period and liaised with external agencies during the same period and arising from that level of engagement cannot make out a case for an extension of time. The Complainant stated that there were exceptional circumstances that required her to work so that she could support her daughter’s education and that the requirement to meet primary needs trumps a strict deadline where her capacity to complete tasks was severely compromised by her disability and in those circumstances the time should be extended for reasonable cause. |
Preliminary Matter:
On the facts this complaint is out of time. The question arises should time be extended for reasonable cause.
The Complainant did send in supporting documentation that showed while she did work after leaving the Respondent, she also experienced significant ongoing chronic pain that eventually meant she had to stop working.
The Respondent relies on a premedical questionnaire signed by the Complainant with the following declaration:
- If you have declared a medical condition in any of the questions above, is this likely to affect your ability to fulfil the requirements if your role? (please provide details of how this may impact you and suggest how we can support if possible) I sought part time work as this suits in terms of the above issues. I am fine to do these hours and will take regular brufen when necessary but no stronger medications.
Do you have any other health conditions not specified above that may be relevant or may impact your ability to carry out the role? If yes, please detail and state any related medication NO
On balance the evidence tends to show that the Complainant had the capacity to lodge her complaint on time. The Complainant had engaged with a solicitor and had worked after leaving the Respondent.
Extension of time
I note in Regan 2nd Ed Employment Law (Bloomsbury 2017) at Anthony Kerr SC states at 28.24:
“The case law of the Labour Court demonstrates that, with the exception of employment equality cases, a complainant must not only show that ‘reasonable cause’ was present but also that it prevented or inhibited the timely presentation of the complaint.
Cementation Skanska v Caroll DWT1017/2013 is the leading case cited relating to the threshold that the Complainant must meet when relying on reasonable cause to explain the delay.
“…there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he [or she] would have initiated the claim in time.”
The facts in this case relevant to time limits are:
- The form was lodged with the Commission on the 2nd of December 2024.
- The Complainant’s employment ended on the 8th of April 2024.
- The alleged detriment ended on cessation of employment.
The facts show that the Complainant despite her pain level did engage in external activities for some months after leaving this employment, worked for another body and also had engaged with a solicitor after leaving her employment. The Complainant argues that while she did this and with great difficulty, so that she could educate her daughter, that meant she had very little resources left in terms of mental and physical capacity to file her complaint. The filing of a complaint form is not excessively onerous nor is it required to be a detailed and final document. On the facts with reference to the Complainant continuing to work after leaving her employment for a reasonable period, I find that the Complainant has not made out a case that shows reasonable cause. The Complainant has not presented a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay. The test is an objective one.
In Minister for Finance v Civil and Public Service Union [2006] IEHC 145, Laffoy J at paragraph 38 wrote:
In the 2004 decision, the Labour Court observed that a relatively short time limit is provided in O. 84, r. 21, with discretion in this Court to extend the time where there is "good reason to do so". It is clear from reading the 2004 decision that the Labour Court accepted that the authorities on O. 84, r. 21 could be applied by analogy to s. 19(5). In particular, the Labour Court quoted, and, indeed, applied the seminal passage in the judgment of Costello J., as he then was, in O'Donnell v. Dun Laoghaire Corporation [1991] I.L.R.M. 301 (at p. 315) in which he construed the term "good reasons" as follows:
"The phrase 'good reasons' is one of wide import which it would be futile to attempt to define precisely. However, in considering whether or not there are good reasons for extending the time I think it is clear that the test must be an objective one and that the court should not extend the time merely because an aggrieved plaintiff believed that he or she was justified in delaying the institution of proceedings. What the plaintiff has to show (and I think the onus under Order 84, rule 21 is on the plaintiff) is that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford a justifiable excuse for the delay. There may be cases, for example where third parties had acquired rights under an administrative decision which is later challenged in a delayed action. Although the aggrieved plaintiff may be able to establish a reasonable explanation for the delay the court might well conclude that his explanation did not afford a good reason for extending the time because to do so would interfere unfairly with the acquired rights (State (Cussen) v. Brennan [1981] I.R. 181)."
The test is an objective one and importantly the case law requires that the court should not extend the time merely because an aggrieved plaintiff believed that he or she was justified in delaying the institution of proceedings.
On the facts presented at the hearing and submissions the Complainant has not made out a reasonable cause to explain the delay and arising from this conclusion I must find that time cannot be extended. I determine that the complaint is out of time.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
See preliminary matter |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
See preliminary matter |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have no jurisdiction to hear the claim as it has been made outside the 6-month statutory time limit to do so. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
As the complaint has been filed out of time, I dismiss the complaint and determine that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 03-02-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Out of time |