Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Remigiusz  Prokopow

Vector Workplace and Facilities Management Limited (amended on consent)

Representatives

Self-Represented

IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00073375-001

11/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00073404-001

13/07/2025

The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation with the assistance of an interpreter who also swore Affirmation. Between 30 July 2025 and 5 January 2026, the Complainant filed 15 separate detailed submissions, who confirmed, when asked, that he was fully aware of the contents.

It was the Complainant’s evidence he was employed by the Respondent in a facilities/cleaning role within a shopping centre environment. The complaints arise from alleged penalisation after raising concerns about changing facilities and safety issues and alleged failure to notify changes to terms and conditions under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

Ms Lian Rooney of IBEC was the Respondent’s representative, assisted by Ms Lucy Sheehan, also of IBEC. Ms Josephine Byrne, National Soft Services Manager, and Mr Jaydean Nicell, Health and Safety Officer, gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent on Affirmation. Mr. David McMullan, HR Business Partner, and Ms Ciara Murray, ER Specialist, also attended.

The parties were advised that they must open the relevant documents in evidence they wish to rely particular due to the volume of documents submitted by the Complainant.

The name of the Respondent was amended at the outset of the hearing to Vector Workplace and Facilities Management Limited.

These complaints were heard along with ADJ-00061223.

A preliminary issue was raised by the Respondent regarding time limits.

Preliminary Objection Response

The Complainant submitted that, while the complaints were lodged in July 2025, the matters complained of arose over a longer period beginning in 2024. It was his submission that the delay in referring the complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) arose due to the ongoing internal processes within the Respondent.

In particular, the Complainant stated that there were a series of internal investigations commenced in 2024 which were lengthy and involved multiple meetings and stages with the first investigation reached a conclusion in or around February 2025. During this time, the Complainant sated he reasonably believed that the issues raised could be resolved internally and therefore did not immediately refer the matter to the WRC.

It was the Complainant’s response that his participation in the internal procedures constitutes a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the entirety of the facts should be considered, rather than being artificially confined to a six-month period.

Preliminary Objection

The Respondent submitted that the complaints are subject to the statutory time limits set out in Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, which provides that complaints must be presented within six months of the contravention, unless reasonable cause exists to extend that period.

It was submitted that the complaints were lodged in July 2025. Accordingly, the cognisable period runs from approximately January 2025 to July 2025. Consequently, any matters predating January 2025 are statute-barred, unless the Complainant can demonstrate reasonable cause for an extension of time.

The Respondent further submitted the Complainant has not established any reasonable cause within the meaning of the relevant jurisprudence and reliance on internal grievance or investigation procedures does not, of itself, justify a delay. The Complainant was aware of the outcome of the internal investigation by February 2025 yet delayed a further number of months before lodging the complaints until 11 and 13 July 2025. There was no adequate or persuasive explanation has been provided for this additional delay

Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties in relation to the issue of time limits, it is not in dispute that the complaints were presented to the WRC on 11 and 13 July 2025. Accordingly, the six-month cognisable period runs from 10 and 12 January 2025 to 11 and 13 July 2025 pursuant to Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

The Complainant relied on the internal investigations, which commenced in 2024 and concluded, insofar as the first investigation is concerned, in February 2025, as constituting reasonable cause for extending the time limit.

On the evidence before me, I find the Complainant was clearly aware of the outcome of the first investigation by February 2025. While the existence of internal procedures may explain a portion of the earlier delay, it does not account for the period between February and July 2025 which of there was no explanation to justify.

Participation in internal procedures, without more, does not automatically amount to reasonable cause for the purposes of extending statutory time limits. This was determined by the Labour Court in Brothers of Charity Services Galway v O’Toole (EDA177) wherein it held; “The Court cannot accept that deploying the Respondent’s internal procedures operated to prevent the Complainant from initiating the within complaints within the statutory time limits provided for under the Act.”

In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has established failure to present the complaint within that period was due to reasonable cause.

Consequently, I find the complaints are not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00073375-001

For the reasons outlined above, I find the complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00073404-001

For the reasons outlined above, I find the complaint is not well founded.