ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058809

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A PhD Student	A University

Representatives

David McCarroll RDJ LLP

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00071415-001	05/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00071415-003	05/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004	CA-00071415-004	05/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00071415-005	05/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022	CA-00071415-006	05/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001	CA-00071415-007	05/05/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/02/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Acts, 1984 - 2012, Part VII of the Pensions Acts 1990 - 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints and dispute.

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 WRC hearings involving the administration of justice (that is all WRC cases save for those for disputes under s.13 Industrial Relations Act 1969), are conducted in public unless the relevant Adjudication Officer decides, of their own motion, or following an application from a party to the proceedings, that due to the existence of ‘special circumstances’, the proceedings should be conducted in private.

As the within claims were heard in conjunction with an Industrial Relations dispute between the same Parties and involving the same circumstances I have decided to anonymise the decision.

Background:

These claims were submitted on 5th of May 2025 under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, the Sick Leave Act 2022 and Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001.

The complainant has also submitted a Trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Act which will be dealt with separately by way of a recommendation under that Act.

These matters were dealt with at the hearing on 16th of February 2026.

The respondent prior to and during the hearing raised a number of preliminary objections centering around the assertion that the complainant is not and was not an employee of the respondent and submitting that the claims as submitted under various pieces of employment rights legislation cannot succeed.

The Respondent in this regard raised a preliminary issue at the outset of the hearing in terms of the WRC s jurisdiction on the basis the complainant is not an employee and does not have standing to bring complaints grounded in employment rights legislation before the WRC.

The respondent went on to state that the complainant had been a student at the respondent university engaged in a research scholarship and had carried out tutorials as part of this course but that his provision of such tutorials had ceased in 2019. The respondent stated that his research scholarship ceased when he failed a Review Panel assessment, and he was advised to instead pursue a masters.

The complainant in response agreed that he was not an employee of the respondent but that he had been a student engaged on a research scholarship part of which had involved providing tutorials. I note that the complainant in earlier correspondence to the Commission had sought to assert that he was an employee by virtue of his provision of tutorials as part of his course.

The complainant at the hearing submitted that his claims should be dealt with under the Equal Status Act and sought that the Adjudication Officer regularise his claims in order that they could be dealt with under the Equal Status Act. The complainant in prehearing submissions on the 26th of January 2026 provided submissions under both the Employment Equality Acts and the Equal Status Act.

The respondent at the hearing objected to the complainant’s request stating that the WRC had no jurisdiction to regularise claims submitted under the seven various pieces of employment legislation to allow them to now proceed under the Equal Status Acts.

Both parties were asked to set out their respective positions with post hearing submissions invited from both sides by the AO.

The complainant’s submission was provided on 9th of March 2026 and the respondents replying to submission provided on 26th of March 2026.

I note that the complainant since this hearing date, has submitted a separate claim under the Equal Status Act. I note that this Equal Status claim submitted on 24th February 2026 has been assigned a separate Adj reference number and as such will proceed as an Equal Status claim through the appropriate mechanism.

I wish to clarify that the Equal Status claim submitted on 24th of February 2026 has a separate Adj reference number and will not be dealt with in this decision.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submits that he was subjected to less favourable treatment in the provision of higher-education services to include

: a. The entry of an NG grade without mandatory safeguards while he was on certified leave

; b. The five-day ultimatum to clear his desk and the threat to wipe his research computer

c. The actual wiping of research data from two assigned computers, and the removal of another computer before 28 November 2023, this time without notice, erasing his research for a second time

e. The adverse findings of the 5 December 2023 Review Panel and the 13 March 2024 Confirmation Panel, reached without the documentation required by the Respondent's own regulations and based on reasons he contends were false or unsupported.

f. The refusal to investigate the 2019 complaint and the denial that it was ever made.

h. The erasure of his research in November 2023, losing his place on the PhD program in December 2023 and avoidance of investigating his complaint

The complainant submits that he relies on the disability ground, the age ground and the victimisation ground, within the meaning of section 3 of the Equal Status Acts 2000 -2015.

The complainant initially submitted his claims under a number of different pieces of employment rights legislation asserting that he was subjected to a constructive unfair dismissal as well as other claims.

The complainant also submitted a claim in respect of a Trade dispute

The complainant submitted claims of unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act as well as claim of age and disability discrimination in employment as well as penalisation claims under the Employment Equality acts.

The complainant submitted a claim under the Pensions act as well as a claim under the Sick Leave Act.

The complainant submits that he had initiated his claims under the Equal Status Acts by sending an ES1 form in January 2025 and receiving a response to same from the respondent in February 2025

The complainant submits that he later lodged his claims under Employment rights legislation on 5th of May 2025 as this was the manual form provided to him by the WRC after he had indicated a difficulty with the online complaint form.

The complainant is now seeking permission that his claims be advanced under the Equal Status Act instead of the legislation impleaded in his claim form of 5th of May 2025.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent submits that the complainant lacks any locus standi to pursue his employment rights claims in circumstances where the Complainant was never an employee of the Respondent.

The respondent submits that the Complainant was a student of the Respondent and was not engaged by way of a contract of employment, as alleged or at all.

the Complainant initially sought to allege that by delivering tutorials as part of his PhD studies it somehow created an employer / employee relationship, but the Complainant has not engaged in the delivery of tutorials since prior to the commencement of a period of leave taken by him in November 2018.

Whilst disputing the fact that delivering tutorials as part of an educational programme can create an employer / employee relationship, it is submitted that any argument by the Complainant that this could create an employer / employee relationship is moot in circumstances where any such claim is now grossly out of time

As with all doctoral students, continued enrolment and academic progression is subject to a Research Review /Progression Panel assessment. The Complainant attended a Progression Review Panel on 5 December 2023 which determined that the Complainant’s progress was not satisfactory, and the Complainant was required to undertake a Research Confirmation Process.

The Research Confirmation Panel decided that the Complainant’s standard was not sufficient to continue on the PhD register and that he should transfer from the PhD programme to a master’s degree programme.

The Complainant was advised of his right to appeal the decision but chose not to appeal instead lodging an internal formal complaint on 1st of July 2024 pursuant to the Student Complaints Policy and Procedures. The student complaint was not upheld he appealed the outcome and his appeal was also unsuccessful.

The respondent submits that by email dated 10 January 2025, the Complainant emailed the Provost of the Respondent making several inaccurate and inflammatory statements and requested that the provost “re-evaluate your defective conclusion.”

The Complainant delivered an ES.1 Form to the Respondent on 28 January 2025, within which he alleged that he had been victimised. The Respondent delivered a detailed ES.2 Form dated 28 February 2025, denied any wrongdoing and provided the Complainant with a detailed response.

The respondent submits that the Complainant has not pursued any claim pursuant to the Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2015.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant fails to meet the definition of an employee or worker within the definition of each of the relevant legislative provisions and is therefore incapable of sustaining any of his claims before this Adjudication Officer.

Findings and Conclusions on Preliminary matters:

The complainant at the hearing submitted that he had initially attempted to submit his claims on the 18th of March 2025 but that he encountered difficulties with the WRC portal and was unable to complete the online complaint form. The complainant submits that following this he contacted WRC submissions outlining his difficulty and requesting a manual claim form to be sent to him.

The complainant submits that he had made it clear that he was seeking to lodge claims under both Employment and Equal Status Acts but that he was only sent one form by the WRC and that form related to Employment rights claims. The complainant submits that he assumed this form could be used to submit claims in respect of both Employment Equality and Equal Status and so he completed the form assuming that he was submitting claims under both routes.

The complainant asserts that he submitted the claims under Employment legislation as that was the manual form sent to him by the WRC, the complainant submits that the mistake in the claims arose because of this.

In considering this argument I note the contents of the complainant’s email to the WRC on 18th of March 2025 in which he states:

Can you please provide/ direct me to the correct printable form to make a complaint? Please note, I was jointly and simultaneously PhD Candidate and employee of the University of (name redacted) where either status, student/employee, was integral to, and, mutually inclusive of the status of the other.

The gist of my complaint involves constructive unfair dismissal after persistent and continuous acts of hostility and victimization throughout my time at (name redacted) which included intentional falsification of my records. The first incident occurred within weeks of starting at (named university) on 13th September 2016 until recently (which includes making formal complaint and allowing (redacted) opportunity to provide an effective remedy).

On 28th February 2025, Dr (name and title redacted) while acknowledging the facts of my complaint, has irrationally and improperly concluded that I cannot make a formal complaint against the School of Law or any of its staff.

I initially tried both WRC on-line forms (employee/Equal Status Act), but the forms do not work properly, for example, at 5: General Complaint Area -the button to save or continue, is off screen and unavailable

I note in particular that the complainant in this email states that the gist of his complaint involves ‘constructive unfair dismissal’.

I note that following this the complainant was sent a pdf version of the complaint form for Employment Rights complaints and the title of the attachment in that email was

Manual Complaint Form Version 15(9) Employment Rights.pdf.

I also note that the first page of this form at the very start sets out the circumstances in which this form should not be used and sets this out in 5 bullet points. I note that at point 5 it states that this form should not be used when.

5) Making a complaint under Equal status legislation. Please use the Equal Status form.

Thus, it is clear that the complainant was sent a form for submitting employment rights complaints and which identified that the form was not to be used for Equal Status complaints. I am thus satisfied that the complainant in this regard was informed that this form was not to be used if he wished to submit an Equal Status claim and that a separate form should be used for such claims.

I note that the complainant completed the complaint form and set out details of employment rights complaints under 7 different pieces of legislation. This was submitted to the WRC on the 5th of May 2025.

I note that the complainant throughout the claim form refers to himself as an employee and also refers to his alleged constructive dismissal by the respondent.

I also note that on the 13th of May 2025 the WRC acknowledged receipt of the claim form via a letter setting out the details of the 7 claims which had been submitted by the complainant under the following pieces of employment legislation:

CA-00071415-001 Unfair Dismissal Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00071415-002 Industrial Relations Issues Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00071415-003 Discrimination Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00071415-004 Discrimination Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004

CA-00071415-005 Penalisation Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00071415-006 Penalisation Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Sick Leave Act 2022

CA-00071415-007 Fixed Term and Part Time Work Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act,

Furthermore, on 16th of May 2025 the WRC wrote to the complainant again this time requesting clarification on a number of issues contained in his claim form in relation to the following:

Complaint CA-00071415-001-the WRC asked that the complainant confirm the end date of his employment and in relation to specific complaint CA-00071415-004 the Commission asked the complainant to select the grounds for his discrimination claim under the Employment Equality Acts.

I note also that this correspondence from the Commission outlined the requirement to provide a detailed statement for all employment equality complaints and in all complaints of constructive dismissal. It also made reference to the dispute lodged by the complainant under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the right of the other party to object to an investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer

I see from the file that the complainant replied to this correspondence on the 20th of May 2025 and addressing the time limits issue raised stated that

application to the WRC only became admissible after (name redacted) University’s internal complaints process had been exhausted/concluded. The decision of the Confirmation Panel, communicated to me on 21st March 2024 (SB, page 50) was the trigger point of my constructive dismissal. The internal complaints process took from then until 13th December to conclude.

The complainant later corrected this by email dated 24th of July 2025 stating that the clock to apply to the WRC only began ticking on 13th December 2024:"

My reason for referring to these communications is that it is evident that there was ongoing communication between the WRC and the complainant following the completion of his claim form and wherein the complainant had ample opportunity to correct any mistakes or omissions in the claim form he had submitted and had ample opportunity to clarify that the remedy he was seeking was in fact under the Equal Status Act and not under the 7 pieces of employment legislation set out in his claim form, if that was the case.

The complainant has further submitted that he completed an ES1 form and sent it to the respondent on 27 January 2025 and the respondent replied to same via the ES 2 form on 28th of February 2025. The complainant submits that this demonstrates that he commenced his claim through the Equal Status route and that it was clear that he wished for his claim to be treated as an Equal Status claim. The respondent in reply submits that it addressed the issues raised by the complainant in his ES1 form via its reply in the ES2 form and that the complainant following this response did not progress a claim under the Equal Status Act instead opting to pursue a number of employment claims under employment legislation including claims under the Employment Equality Acts and Unfair Dismissals Act.

Notwithstanding the ES1 notification which preceded the submission of the employment rights claims I note that it was not until January 2026 that the complainant submitted that his claims should be dealt with under the Equal Status Act at which point he lodged his submissions in respect of his employment rights related claims as well as a separate submission under the Equal Status Acts.

The complainant by email to the commission dated 26 January 2026 states:

I have identified an apparent inconsistency concerning the governing legislation for this complaint. Both I and the Respondent have addressed the matter to date by reference to the Equal Status Acts 2000–2015, as reflected in the ES1 and ES2 forms.

However, WRC correspondence identifies CA-00071415-003 as a complaint seeking adjudication under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998. As today is the submission deadline, and to ensure compliance regardless of which legislative basis is ultimately applied, I am lodging two standalone written submissions: A. Written Submission under the Equal Status Acts 2000–2015 (WRC Equality Submission 26Jan 2026.pdf); and B. Written Submission under the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 (WRC Employment Submission 26Jan 2026.pdf).

I respectfully request that the WRC clarify which legislative framework will be applied to CA-00071415-003 and confirm which of the two submissions should be treated as the operative submission for the purposes of the adjudication.

This appears to be an attempt by the complainant to ‘ride two horses’ and pursue his claims via both the employment rights route and the Equal status route.

In considering the complainants application to ‘regularise his claims’ under the Equal status route.

It is worth noting at the outset that I have been delegated these complaints under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, the Sick Leave Act 2022 and Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001.

Having read the complainant’s prehearing submissions it is clear that his complaints relate to the respondent’s treatment of him while he was a PHD research student which he was prevented from progressing following a Review Panel assessment in 201

The Complainant has now sought to change his pleadings from those he initiated on 5th of May 2025 under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, the Sick Leave Act 2022 and Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 and the Industrial Relations Act and seeks to have all of the matters dealt with under the Equal Status Act 2000.

It is worth noting that I derive my jurisdiction at this point from the statutes under which the claims have been submitted.

The Complainant has now sought to change direction in the case.

The Complainant confirmed that he had previously sent the respondent an ES1 form in January 2025 and received an ES 2 reply from them in February 2025 prior to his making the instant claims on 5th of May 2025.

He has asserted that the reason for not proceeding with the Equal Status complaint at that time was due to a difficulty he experienced with the online form and following which the WRC provided him with a manual form which he states he assumed could be used for both Employment and Equal status claims.

Having examined this matter above I am satisfied that the information provided within this manual complaint form clarified that it was to be used for employment rights claims and not for Equal status claims. I am also satisfied that the complainant did not seek to clarify or pursue an Equal Status claim after submitting his employment rights claims until January 2026.

I note that the complainant had submitted and ES1 form to the respondent in January 2025 and received from them an ES2 form in reply but that the claim ultimately filed and notified to the respondent was a number of claims under different pieces of Employment rights Legislation.

The Complainant at the hearing stated that he was not an employee of the respondent but that he was a student and that his claims relate to an assertion that he was prevented from proceeding with his studies due to discriminatory treatment by the respondent.

The complainant requested that he be permitted to change course in his claims and instead submit them under the Equal Status Acts.

The Respondent rejected the Complainants petition to change direction and has sought that the case be dismissed as prejudicial to the Respondent.

I explored the application being made by the complainant and in doing so I note the application of

Louth VEC and Equality Tribunal at the Supreme Court [2016] IESC.

This was a case which constituted a challenge to a live case progression at the former Equality Tribunal when the public body opposed the expansion of a claim at hearing as being outside the scope of the terms complained of.

The Supreme Court rejected the challenge and returned the case to the presiding Adjudicator.

I note that the Court through Mc Kechnie J stated

“35. It is both a trite and historical principle of law that a creature of statute must live by the statute. Its jurisdiction is found solely within the provisions of the enabling Act. It has no inherent capacity, unlike, say, that of a constitutional court. It is therefore bound by what has been conferred on it. It has no further competence, and it cannot create, add to or enlarge the jurisdiction so vested in it. Killeen v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1997] 3 I.R. 218. It is bound by what jurisdiction it has and must act accordingly.

He went on to state that “the Tribunalcannot Freelance its Inquiry “

The Court went on to reflect through Hedigan J in Clare County Council v Director of Equality Tribunal [2011] IEHC 303,

that a Lay Litigant is not expected to articulate the complaint the same way as a Professionally qualified advocate and pointed to some lea way on formulation of a complaint, however that leeway did not extend to changing the Law to be applied.

While it is clear that some leeway should be afforded to a lay litigant as regards permitting an expansion of the claim once the general nature of the claim remains the same however on this occasion, I am being requested to forsake my delegated jurisdiction and exercise a judicial activism that is outside of my reach.

I note that the complainant had initially sent the respondent an ES1 form, and the respondent had replied to same, but he later submitted a number of claims under different pieces of employment legislation including the employment Equality Acts.

I also note that the complainant since the hearing date has now submitted an Equal Status complaint which is proceeding as a separate claim under a separate Adj reference.

It is clear to me that the Complainant in this case submitted claims under employment rights legislation and within these claims asserted on numerous occasions that the respondent was his employer and that he had considered himself constructively dismissed from his employment with the respondent.

I can accept that the Complainant states that he made a mistake in the formulation of his claims after a manual form for employment rights claims was provided to him on request, but I note that he was given an immediate opportunity to amend those claims in the ensuing communications between the complainant and the Commission. I note that in all of the subsequent correspondence up to January 2026 the complainant continued to pursue his claims of employment rights.

I must conclude therefore that the complainant up until January 2026 was satisfied that the form he submitted on 5th of May was an accurate reflection of the claims he wished to pursue and that he did not avail of any opportunity to amend same until January 2026.

Notwithstanding the initial submission of the ES1 form it seems clear that the complainant realised all too late that the preferred route for his complaint was to pursue a claim under the Equal Status Act rather than the employment rights claims he had lodged.

It also seems clear that the complainant did not exercise sufficient due diligence in the formulation of his complaint on 5th of May 2025 or if he did then it is the case that he did not wish to pursue a claim under the Equal Status Act as he did not request the Equal Status form or seek any clarification as to where and how he could lodge a claim under the Equal Status Act as the form he used for employment rights claims clearly stated that it was not to be used for Equal Status claims.

I note that the complainant did not at any stage revert to the WRC seeking clarification or information in respect of any purported Equal Status claim and did not seek to amend or remove any of the claims lodged by him under employment rights legislation.

The Respondent submits that the claims stem from the complainant’s position as a PhD research student who failed to progress following a Review Panel assessment in 2023. The respondent submits that these matters have been progressed through its internal complaints procedure where the complainant chose to do so and the respondent dealt with those complaints in the appropriate manner.

The Respondent has raised a perceived prejudice in the face of an arbitrary alteration of the Jurisdiction governing the complaints from the various Employment rights breaches claimed to Equal Status.

In considering this matter I am mindful of the High Court case which proceeded the Supreme Court in Louth VEC 2009, which respected that the complaint was not limited by the contents of the complaint form.

I note that the respondent in this case has strongly objected to the request that the claims as submitted on 5th of May 2025 now be dealt with under the Equal Status Act. The Respondent has indicated that it does not consent to accept the claims under the Equal Status Act, and I accept their argument of prejudice.

I find that I cannot now depart from my delegated jurisdiction to a separate jurisdiction outside of the consent of the Respondent, which was not forthcoming.

Accordingly my jurisdiction in the within matters derives for the legislation under which these claims have been submitted and I find that I cannot accede to the Complainants request to regularise his claims and change direction in this case and alter my delegated jurisdiction from that derived from the legislation under which the within claims are lodged to that of the Equal Status Act 2000.

Having decided that the claims as submitted in the claims from of 5th of May 2025 are the claims which are properly before me, I must now consider the next question raised by the respondent which is that of locus standi to pursue the claims as referred under the various employment rights legislation as referred in the claim form of 5th of Maty 2025.

The respondent submits that the complainant has no locus standi to pursue the claims as outlined under the various employment rights legislation as he is not an employee for the purposes of those Acts.

I note that the locus standi to pursue the within claims derives in the first instance from a complainant’s position as an employee.

The respondent in its submissions set out the definition of “employee” under each of the impleaded pieces of legislation and it is clear that the locus standi to take a case under such legislation derives in the first instance from being an employee.

The respondent advises that the Complainant is not and was not an employee of the respondent but was a PhD research student.

The complainant at the hearing and in his submissions has clarified that he is not an employee of the respondent and that his claims stem from his position as a student at the respondent university. The complainant submits that his primary complaint has always been under the Equal Status Acts as a student. The complainant further submits that the unfair dismissal claim was included as a precautionary alternative only.

While I fully accept that the power to dismiss any case is a power that should be sparingly used. I have identified that this is an occasion where it is necessary to dismiss the claims on the basis of the complainant’s lack of locus standi.

I find that the complainant has no locus standi to pursue the within claims and accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to hear the substantive matters.

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

CA-00071415-001

05/05/2025

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.