Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Emmanuelle  Toulliou

Mount Anville Secondary School

Representatives

Kevin Roche BL instructed  Mason Hayes & Curran LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute 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-00071988-001

29/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00071988-002

29/05/2025

The Complainant stated that she was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent on 30 August 2024 when the offer of teaching hours she was promised for the 2024/2025 academic year was rescinded.  The Respondent stated that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed and that her employment ended when her fixed term contracts expired.

The Complainant explained that the Respondent telephoned her on 30 August 2024 and told her that they had a position for her in respect of the 2024/2025 school year. A few hours later however, she received a telephone call stating that there were no hours for her and alleged that she was effectively dismissed as a result.

She subsequently sent an email to the principal on 31 August 2024 asking to see her. She stated that the principal met her the following week. She stated that the principal informed her at the meeting that if they had any hours for her, they would let her know before the New Year. She also stated that she would put a word in for her in a previous school where she had taught in.

In February 2023, the Complainant entered into a fixed-term contract with the Respondent to cover a maternity leave. In June 2023, she entered into a subsequent fixed-term contract which was to commence from 1 September 2023 and expire on 31 August 2024. The second fixed-term contract expired on 31 August 2024.

In late August 2024, the Respondent received late notification of a permanent French teacher taking Carer’s Leave. The School Principal then contacted the complainant by way of telephone call on Friday 23 August 2024. During the call, it was intimated to the Complainant that there “may” be hours for her and the Principal informed her that she would email her a proposed timetable.

Very soon after the phone call on 23 August 2024, it came to the Respondent’s attention that an existing member of staff was in fact a qualified French teacher. The Respondent then filled the remaining hours with that existing member of staff. The Respondent phoned the Complainant on Monday 26 August 2024 which went straight to voicemail. The Complainant sent a text to the School Principal later that afternoon, and the pair spoke over the phone on that date. During the phone call, the School Principal indicated to the Complainant that the Respondent had in fact been in a position to cover French classes internally and therefore there were no hours to allocate to the complainant for the coming academic year. On 30 August 2024 the Complainant emailed the Respondent acknowledging that fact.

In or around January 2025, the Complainant again contacted the Respondent in respect of any potential vacancies arising with mock orals.

On 10 February 2025, the Complainant sought a reference from the Respondent by way of email. This was provided by the Respondent. The Respondent had also previously provided a statement of employment dated 10 September 2024.

The Respondent stated that because the Complainant was employed pursuant to two fixed-term contracts to provide cover for staff members on leave her employment ended because these contracts expired and she was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00071988-002:

Preliminary Issue

The Law

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1993 states the following in respect of time limits:

A claim for redress under this Act shall be initiated by giving a notice in writing (containing such particulars (if any) as may be specified in regulations under subsection (17) of section 41 of the Act of 2015) to the Director General—

(a) within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal, or

(b) within such period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the relevant dismissal as the adjudication officer considers appropriate, in circumstances where the adjudication officer is satisfied that the giving of the notice within the period referred to in paragraph (a) was prevented due to reasonable cause

Findings:

Having regard to the legislation above, and given the Complainant’s evidence that she was dismissed on 30 August 2024, I am satisfied that the cognisable period is the six-month period form 30 August 2024 to 28 February 2025.

I noted however that the complaint was not referred to the WRC until 29 May 2025 and that the Complainant is therefore seeking that the time period be extended on the basis that she could not present her claim within the cognisable period due to reasonable cause in accordance with Section 8 (b) of the Act set out above.

The Complainant’s evidence was that the Respondent telephoned her on 30 August 2024 to advise that a position would be available to her for the 2024/2025 school year. A few hours later, however, she received a further call indicating that no hours were in fact available and that her employment was effectively terminated. On 31 August 2024, she emailed the school principal seeking a meeting, which took place during the first week of September.

At the hearing, the Complainant stated that she hoped the school might contact her later in the year with an offer of work and she did not wish to jeopardise the possibility of such work by referring a complaint to the WRC. She also stated that, during the meeting with the principal in early September, she was told that if any work arose, she would be informed before the New Year. In my view, the Complainant ought reasonably to have concluded by 1 January 2025 that no such offer would be forthcoming and should then have referred her complaint.

When asked about this at the hearing, she stated that the complaint was not referred in the subsequent two months, prior to 28 February 2025, which would have allowed it to be lodged within the cognisable period, because her father was in end-of-life care around this time and subsequently died.

While I have sympathy for her personal circumstances, I note that she was nevertheless in a position to contact the school on 23 January 2025, offering to assist students with their French oral examinations. The school secretary responded on 27 January 2025 indicating that she would be contacted if required. This correspondence demonstrates that, at that time, the Complainant retained the capacity to engage with the school and manage her affairs. It is therefore difficult to accept that she was prevented by her circumstances from submitting her WRC complaint within the statutory timeframe.

Having considered all of the evidence and the submissions made, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has shown reasonable cause for her failure to refer the complaint within the six-month period from 30 August 2024 to 28 February 2025, as required by Section 8(b) of the Acts.

Accordingly, I must therefore decline jurisdiction to inquire into the matter.

CA-00071988-001:

This complaint was withdrawn as it was clear from the narrative on the form that this is an unfair dismissal complaint.

CA-00071988-002:

I have no jurisdiction in respect of this complaint for the reasons set out above.