Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary  Gamble

Furniture Manufacturing and Recycling t/a County House Furniture

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00076263-001

12/10/2025

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation. She had been employed as a salesperson by the respondent company and her employment ended on December 20th, 2024.

However, she says that  she was not provided with pay slips but that this only came to light when she made a claim to the Department of Social Protection in August 2025.

She then discovered that social welfare deductions had not been returned by her employer on her behalf, and  she was not entitled to benefits.

The complainant did not submit her complaint until October 12th, 2025, and she says that this is explained by the fact that she only contacted the DoSP on August 13th, 2025, and this was the point at which she realised there was a problem.

In relation to the fact that the complaint was made under Complaint under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 the complainant said that she made the complaint in error.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The complaint was submitted to the WRC on October 10th, 2025, which gives rise to the first of a number of obstacles in the way of the complainant.

Her employment ended on December 12th the previous year, placing her complaint ten months outside the required time limits at the very earliest (depending on the date of the last alleged breach).

By way of explanation she submitted that she only became aware of the issue on August 13th, and while that was already just under two months outside the six month limit she did nothing for another two months. This is an insufficient basis to extend the time limits.

The test to be applied in extension of time applications under the Acts, is that formulated by the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carrol Determination DWT 0338 and in other cases and may be summarised as the ‘explain and excuse’ test.

“It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the     circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would    have initiated the claim in time.

 The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only a slight explanation whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons. Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case.”

In any event, the complainant has made her complaint under the wrong legislation.

Despite her protestations to the contrary she was sent correspondence on a number of occasions from the WRC which specified the legislation under which she was proceeding; indeed it appeared in correspondence to her as early as October 29th, 2025,  and this correspondence also drew attention to the time limits issue.

Some obligation falls on a party to actually read this material and check that it is accurate and either prepare a response or consider their position.

For the reason above related to the time limits this is academic as is the fact that a complaint related to pay slips should have been made under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

For all of these reasons the complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00076263-001 is not well founded

Time limits, incorrect legislation