FTD262

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00032978 (CA-00043630-003)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Decision to the Labour Court. 

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th and 14th of January 2026.            

The following is the Court's Decision.

DECISION:

1 Decision

This is an appeal of decision ADJ-00032978 CA- 00043630-003 of an Adjudication Officer under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003, (the Act) by the Complainant Mr Iredale in a complaint against the Minister for Trade and Employment, the Respondent. The Adjudication Officer did not uphold his complaint.

Hearings were held on 30 January 2025 (case management) and 13 January 2026. The cases had been scheduled for hearing on earlier occasions. However, postponements and extensions of time for submissions had been requested and granted.

2 Background

The Complainant was appointed as a Rights Commissioner on 01 November 2007 and as an Adjudication Officer on 1 October 2015. The Complainant held dual warrants for a period of time.

The Rights Commissioner warrant expired on 31 August 2018, and his Adjudication Officer’s warrant was withdrawn by the Minister on the 25 October 2018

This complaint is linked to the following cases PTW/22/2, FTC/22/11, FTC/22/13, WTC/22/103 WTC/22/104 and WTC/22/105.

The complaints were submitted to the WRC on 26 February 2019. The cognisable period for the purpose of the Act is 27 August 2018 to 26 February 2019.  The appeals were submitted to the Labour Court on 13 April 2022. Both parties confirmed that these were the relevant dates.

The Respondent raised a preliminary issue which is relevant to all the Complainants cases. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not received payment or carried out any work for the Respondent since 2016, which is outside of the cognisable period set out in the Act.

 At the commencement of the hearing the Court proposed that it would hear the parties on the preliminary issue of when the Complainant last carried out work for the Respondent and last received payment from the Respondent and what they were saying were the breaches during the cognisable period set out in the Act.  The parties agreed to proceed on that basis.

3 Summary of Complainant’s submission

Mr Gilvarry on behalf of the Complainant stated that they accept that the Complainant was absent through the cognisable period. He cannot recall when he last carried out work for the Respondent but accepts that he was last paid in 2016. It will be the Complainants evidence that he carried out some work including issuing correction orders but did not get paid for that work. He submitted that the Complainant was on unpaid sick leave from 2016 to when his warrants expired. He accepted that this was the first time that claim was being made and that the Complainant had not submitted nor had he been requested to submit medical certificates to cover the ongoing absence. 

4 Summary of Complainants evidence

The Complainant in his evidence in chief stated that he did not get paid from 2016 onwards and that he had worked sporadically between 2012 and 2016.  In 2015 to 2016 he had carried out a limited amount of work. He was not able to work due to his disability but had hopes of getting back to work eventually. In 2018 he decided not to look for his warrant to be renewed.  It was his evidence that after 2016 he maintained irregular but continuous contact with the WRC. One of his warrants was renewed while he was out sick. He confirmed he was last paid in 2016 but recalled being contacted in 2017/2018 about a problem and the need to issue a correcting order in a case.

Under cross examination by Ms Fay BL, he accepted that his last payment was 10 June 2016 in respect of work undertaken on 10, 17 and 18 May. The Complainant accepted that he did not do any work paid or unpaid during the cognisable period. An email from December 2016 was opened and it was put to the Complainant if that was the work he was referring to in his evidence. The Complainant accepted it was. He confirmed that he wrote on 22 August 2018 indicating that he would not be looking for his warrants to be renewed.  The Complainant was unable to point to any documents that would support his assertion that he maintained irregular but continuous contact with the WRC after 2016.

 The Complainant accepted that it was a fact that he had not indicated any availability to work during the cognisable period. He accepts that was his decision and not a decision imposed on him by the WRC.  He confirmed that no documentation was submitted in respect of his sick leave claim, and he could not say what his basis for saying he was entitled to sick pay during the cognisable period.

5 Summary of the Respondent’s submission

Ms Fay BL, on behalf of the Respondent, submitted that the Complainant was not entitled to relief under any of the statutes that he had submitted complaints under. The Complainant did not work during the cognisable period and cannot establish that he either came within the scope of the Acts or that there was a breach of the Acts during that period. He was at all material times an Office Holder but did not have a contract of employment with the Respondent. Ms Fay BL submitted that the Court should first consider as a preliminary matter whether during the cognisable period the Complainant came within scope of the Acts, in circumstances where he had not been available to work nor had he provided services either as a Rights Commissioner or an Adjudication Officer since 2016.

6 Relevant legislations

The Workplace Relations Act 2015 at section 41 (6) states:

 (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.

(7)……

(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.

7 Discussion

The preliminary issue for the Court to decide is whether there is prima facie evidence of a breach of the Act within the cognisable period.   As outlined in the submissions and the Complainant’s sworn evidence set out above, the following facts are not in dispute.

 The cognisable period for the purpose of the Act is 27 August 2018 to 26 February 2019.

 No application for an extension of time was made at first instance.

The Complainant was last paid by the Respondent in June 2016.

 The Complainant last carried out work for the Respondent in December 2016.

 The Complainant did not make himself available for work during the cognisable period.

 It was accepted by the Complainant that he did not do any work paid or unpaid during the cognisable period.

Taking into account the undisputed facts set out above and the requirements of section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the Court determines that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints as no breach of the Act during the cognisable period has been identified.

8 Decision

The appeal fails.

The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
16 February 2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.