ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00061819

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  13/02/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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.

Background:

Opening Legal Issues / Jurisdiction of the Adjudication officer.

In Opening Legal Arguments, the Respondent Representative, Ms Ruane, raised two main issues,

1. Name of the Respondent
2. Time Limits for complaints – Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act,2015

On both of these headings she argued that the Adjudication Officer did not have proper jurisdiction to proceed.

1:            Respondent Arguments

1:1     Name of Respondent

The name of the Respondent quoted by the Complainant is “Bank of X” While it is accepted that this is the plain vernacular name of the Respondent (without any legal standing) the correct and proper legal name is “The Governor and Company of the Bank of X”. All employment contracts and legal documents are in this name. The Complainant’s Contract of Employment is in this name.

The Complainant is an experienced Bank Executive and would be absolutely familiar, in all his daily dealings, with the correct name of the Respondent.

The Respondent argued that the use of the incorrect name invalidated the entire WRC Complaint. Case law in support was cited - Labour Court -Sylwia Wach v Travelodge Limited, EDA 1511 and Adj-00047943 Brogan v Currie.

While it was recognised that an Adjudication Officer could amend a Respondent Name in certain circumstances it was the very firm positon of the Respondent that no such exceptional circumstances arose in this case. The were objecting to any attempts to amend the complaint.

1:2       Time Limits

The complaint was lodged with the WRC on the 19th August 2025 – giving a “cognisable period” of the 20th February 2025 to the 19th August 2025 – Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

The Adjudication Officer had powers under Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 to allow an extension for a further six months - back to the 19th August 2024 - “due to reasonable cause”. Very significant case law and extensive legal precedents govern this granting by an Adjudication Officer of an extension. “Reasonable cause” has to be very well substantiated and supported by strong evidence. In this case the delay would amount to approximately some 10 months in total. The Landmark case is the Labour Court in Cementation Skansa v Carroll [DWT0338].

Regarding an issue of the use of Internal procedures as a reason for delay the Respondent quoted Brothers of Charity Services Galway V Kieran O’Toole [EDA177] where the Labour Court did not accept that using Internal procedures precluded an Employee from lodging a WRC complaint.

The key issues in this case took place in and around the start of October 2024 and a WRC complaint lodged on the 19th August 2025 has to be seen as clearly out of time. The Adjudication Officer has no Legal jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

2:            Complainant’s Arguments

2:1     Name of Respondent

The Complainant argued that the plain vernacular name of the Bank was Bank of X. It was known as such through the entire Country and the UK. The Arguments from the Respondents were simply a contrived nonsense to legally avoid their responsibilities. The Adjudication Officer should recognise this and proceed.

2:2       Time Limits

It was recognised that an initial incident with a Manager took place in October 2025, but this issue had led to a protracted series of investigations and ongoing meetings that ran well into 2025. In fact, some of the issues are still ongoing. His claim is well within the initial cognisable period of 20th  February 2025 to the 19th August 2025. Furthermore, an extension back to the 19th August 2024 is eminently justifiable in view of the very extensive internal procedures that were utilised during this period.    

3:            Adjudication view & Conclusion.

3:1          Discussion

Name of Respondent

This was a challenging question – the Respondent was very firm in their view that the precise Legal name of the Organisation was in daily use internally. The Complainant was an Executive dealing with considerable major Financial Products where legal accuracy was paramount.

In the Oral testimony the Complainant did not really deny this point.

On this basis the Adjudication view had to be that the Respondent argument had merit.

Time Limits

In the evidence presented it was clear that the key incident had been on or about the 15th October 2024. The Complainant lodged a final formal Grievance on the 16th December 2024 -this followed a comprehensive series of e mails with HR and local Managers and what could be called “draft Grievances”. Finally, a Dignity at Work complaint and a Grievance were lodged. An independent investigator, Mr GR, issued a finding on the 10th February 2025. Neither Process had found in the Complainant’s favour.

The Complainant at this stage felt that fair process had not been followed. He referred in correspondence to SI 146 of 2000 -the Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

Although the Complainant was not professionally Represented at this February 2025 stage it was hard to see why he did not lodge a complaint with the WRC at this February 2025 stage rather than wait until the 19th August 2025.

On balance and from reviewing the extensive paperwork the Adjudication view was that the Complainant, possibly inadvertently, missed the WRC six-month deadline of the 15th April 2025 (i.e. 6 months post the incident on the 15th October 2024). Lodging a complaint on the 19th August 2025 (10 months later) makes it clearly out of time for a date in October 2024.

There were no grounds of Reasonable Cause advanced to allow an extension for a further six months back to August 2024. Legal precedents indicate that any Reasonable Cause has to be very substantiality grounded in most and very serious exceptional matters.

3:2          Adjudication Conclusion

While both the Name of the Party and the Time limits questions are legally separate issues the Adjudicator on careful reflection on both arguments had to come to the view that the Adjudication did not have proper jurisdiction.

The claim could not proceed.

Findings and Conclusions:

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 & Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.

CA: 00074553-001

The complaint is legally Not Properly Founded. The Adjudication Officer lacks proper jurisdiction.

Dated:   10-07-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Michael McEntee

Key Words: