Gearánach

Freagróir

Páirtithe

Seanán  Ó Coistín

Údarás Sábháilteachta Bia na hÉireann

Ionadaithe

Peadar Ó Maolain BL a fhaigheann treoracha ó

Paul Gough Beauchamps LLP

Acht

Uimhir Thagartha an Ghearáin/an Aighnis.

Dáta Fála

Gearán ag lorg breithnithe ag an gCoimisiún um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre faoi Sceideal 2 den Acht um Nochtadh Cosanta, 2014

CA-00073367-001

11/07/2025

Gearán ag lorg breithnithe ag an gCoimisiún um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre faoi Sceideal 14 den Acht um Chosaint Fostaithe (Obair Téarma Shocraithe) 2003

CA-00073367-002

11/07/2025

Líomhnaíonn an Gearánach go ndearna sé nochtadh cosanta trí aird a tharraingt ar easpa inniúlachta Gaeilge laistigh d’Údarás Sábháilteachta Bia na hÉireann agus gur gearradh pionós air as sin a dhéanamh nuair a cuireadh ar shaoire riaracháin é agus gur cuireadh as an ionad oibre é ar 11 Nollaig 2024. Maíonn sé gurbh ionann an ghníomhaíocht sin agus frithbheart as ábhair imní a ardú maidir le cumas Gaeilge an Fhreagróra.

Dúirt an Gearánach go ndearna sé nochtadh cosanta nuair a scaip sé, ar an 11 Nollaig 2024, ríomhphost chuig foireann an Fhreagróra inar tugadh chun solais an méid a ndearna sé cur síos air mar easpa iomlán cumas Gaeilge laistigh d’Údarás Sábháilteachta Bia na hÉireann, comhlacht poiblí a bhfuil dualgais reachtúla teanga air.

Dúirt an Gearánach gur nocht sé faisnéis a bhain le hábhar a bhfuil tábhacht phoiblí ag baint leis, is é sin neamhábaltacht gníomhaireachta de chuid an Stáit feidhmiú trí chéad teanga oifigiúil an Stáit.

Dhearbhaigh an Gearánach gur fhreagair an lucht bainistíochta go diúltach i leith an nochta sin agus gur cuireadh ar shaoire riaracháin é an lá céanna agus gur tugadh treoir dó an t-ionad oibre a fhágáil láithreach gan deis a bheith tugtha dó ábhar a ríomhphoist a mhíniú nó a phlé.

Líomhain sé gur caitheadh leis ar bhealach díoltasach agus gur phionósú é de réir bhrí an Achta um Nochtadh Cosanta, 2014.

Dúirt sé go raibh fearg ar an lucht bainistíochta de bharr a nochta toisc gur nocht sé easnaimh go poiblí laistigh den eagraíocht maidir le hinniúlacht sa Ghaeilge. Dar leis, ní beart neodrach riaracháin a bhí sa chinneadh é a chur ar shaoire riaracháin ach gníomhaíocht díoltais a d’eascair as a nochtadh.

Líomhain an Gearánach freisin go raibh an t-imscrúdú a lean mar chuid den chóir dhíobhálach a fuair sé tar éis an nochtadh a dhéanamh.

Maidir leis an moill a bhí ar a ghearán a chur i láthair, dúirt an Gearánach gur chuir easpa leaganacha Gaeilge de reachtaíocht a bhain lena éileamh faoi mhíbhuntáiste é agus é ag saothrú a cheart dlíthiúil agus gur chuidigh sé leis an moill a bhí ar an ngearán a thaisceadh.

Ba é príomhsheasamh an Fhreagróra gur cuireadh an gearán i láthair lasmuigh den teorainn ama reachtúil sé mhí agus, dá bhrí sin, nár cheart aird a thabhairt air. Luaigh siad gur tharla an gníomh maidir le pionósú líomhnaithe an 11 Nollaig 2024 nuair a cuireadh an Gearánach ar shaoire riaracháin, ach nár cuireadh an gearán i láthair go dtí an 11 Iúil 2025.

Luaigh an Freagróir freisin nár suíodh aon chúis réasúnach chun údar a thabhairt le síneadh ama.

Gan dochar don réamhagóid sin, dhearbhaigh an Freagróir nach nochtadh cosanta é ríomhphost an 11 Nollaig 2024 de réir bhrí alt 5 den Acht um Nochtadh Cosanta, 2014.

Dúirt siad gurbh ionann an ríomhphost agus léiriú ar thuairimí an Ghearánaigh maidir leis an nGaeilge agus leibhéal na hinniúlachta sa Ghaeilge laistigh den eagraíocht agus nár nocht sé aon éagóir ábhartha mar a shainítear leis an Acht.

Luaigh an Freagróir freisin nach raibh baint ag saoire riaracháin an Ghearánaigh le haon nochtadh líomhnaithe. Ina ionad sin, tháinig sé chun cinn toisc go ndearna triúr fostaithe gearán faoi theanga agus ábhar an ríomhphoist, go háirithe tagairtí a thug le fios go raibh daoine nár fhoghlaim Gaeilge "ciníoch i gcoinne na Gaeilge" nó "leisciúil".

Dhearbhaigh an Freagróir go raibh sé d’oibleagáid orthu na gearáin sin a imscrúdú agus gur bheart réasúnta comhréireach a bhí sa tsaoire riaracháin agus an t-imscrúdú sin ar feitheamh.

Luaigh an Freagróir freisin nár bhain aon chaillteanas airgeadais don Ghearánach toisc gur fhan sé ar phá iomlán le linn na tréimhse saoire riaracháin go dtí go ndeachaigh a shocrúchán ar théarma seasta in éag an 31 Nollaig 2024.

Dhearbhaigh siad freisin nach bhféadfaí neamh-athnuachan chonradh fostaíochta an Ghearánaigh a nascadh leis an ríomhphost toisc go raibh an cinneadh gan an sannadh a shíneadh curtha in iúl don ghníomhaireacht fostaíochta roinnt seachtainí cheana féin sular seoladh an ríomhphost.

Ar deireadh, dhiúltaigh an Freagróir don mhaíomh go ndearnadh aon ghníomh díobhálach mar gheall ar ábhar imní a ardaíodh maidir leis an nGaeilge agus shéan sé aon mheon frith-Ghaeilge laistigh den eagraíocht.

CA-00073367-001:

Réamh-Shaincheist: Teorainneacha Ama

D’ardaigh an Freagróir réamhagóid gur cuireadh an gearán i láthair lasmuigh de na teorainneacha ama a fhorordaítear le halt 41(6) den Acht um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre, 2015.

Is é an gníomh maidir le pionósú líomhnaithe ar a bhfuil an Gearánach ag brath ná a shocrú ar shaoire riaracháin an 11 Nollaig 2024. Cuireadh an gearán faoin Acht um Nochtadh Cosanta, 2014 faoi bhráid an Choimisiúin um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre an 11 Iúil 2025.

Foráiltear le halt 41(6) den Acht um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre, 2015 nach dtabharfaidh Oifigeach Breithniúcháin aird ar ghearán a tharchuirfear chuige nó chuici faoin alt sin má cuireadh i láthair é tar éis dheireadh na tréimhse sé mhí dar tosach dáta an tsáraithe lena mbaineann an gearán. Féadfar fadú suas le sé mhí eile a dheonú de bhun alt 41(8) i gcás gur chúis réasúnach ba chúis leis an mainneachtain an gearán a thíolacadh laistigh den tréimhse fhorordaithe.

Maireann tréimhse sé mhí dar tosach an 11 Nollaig 2024, ar an mbonn gnáthdháta chomhfhreagraigh faoina ríomhtar na tréimhsí sin, suas go dtí an 11 Meitheamh 2025 ach gan an dáta sin a áireamh, an dáta a chomhfhreagraíonn go huimhriúil do dháta an tsáraithe sa séú mí ina dhiaidh sin. Chuaigh an tréimhse in éag dá réir sin an 10 Meitheamh 2025. Dá bhrí sin, bhí an gearán, a cuireadh i láthair an 11 Iúil 2025, lasmuigh den tréimhse theorann sé mhí, agus b’ionann an mhoill agus thart ar mhí amháin.

Dúirt an Gearánach gur tháinig deacrachtaí chun cinn toisc nach raibh an reachtaíocht a bhain lena éileamh ar fáil i nGaeilge agus gur chuir sé sin faoi mhíbhuntáiste agus a chás á ullmhú agus á chur i láthair. Dúirt sé gur chuir sé sin moill ar a chumas imeachtaí a thionscnamh. Ina theannta sin, d’agair sé Airteagal 25.4.6° de Bhunreacht na hÉireann, ina bhforáiltear go bhfuil an téacs Gaeilge i réim nuair a thagann téacsanna Gaeilge agus téacs Béarla d’Acht cláraithe salach ar a chéile.

Breithníodh an tástáil ar chúis réasúnach i gcorpas substaintiúil dlí-eolaíochta na Cúirte Oibreachais, lena n-áirítear Cementation Skanska v Carroll [Stroighniú Skanska v Carroll] DWT0338, i gcás inar chinn an Chúirt nach mór do ghearánach cúiseanna a léiriú a mhíníonn an mhoill agus a thugann leithscéal i leith na moille, agus nach mór nasc cúisíoch a bheith ann idir na hábhair a bhfuiltear ag brath orthu agus an mhainneachtain an gearán a thaisceadh laistigh d’am. Shainaithin an Chúirt sa chinneadh sin fad na moille freisin mar bhreithniú ábhartha agus measúnú á dhéanamh ar cheart síneadh a dheonú. Bhí aird agam ar an toisc sin anseo. Tá an mhoill sa chás seo, thart ar mhí amháin tar éis na príomhthréimhse teorann, gearr i gcomparáid. Mar sin féin, ní thugann moill ghearr cúis réasúnta as féin. Ní mór don Ghearánach fós cúiseanna a bhunú a mhíníonn an mhoill agus a thugann leithscéal aisti agus a léiríonn nasc cúisíoch idir na cúiseanna sin agus an mhainneachtain an gearán a chur i láthair laistigh d’am. Ní chuidíonn giorracht choibhneasta na moille leis i gcás nár bunaíodh a leithéid de nasc cúisíoch.

Tar éis dom aighneachtaí an Ghearánaigh a bhreithniú go cúramach, nílim sásta gur chuir easpa leaganacha Gaeilge de reachtanna áirithe cosc air a ghearán a thaisceadh laistigh den tréimhse reachtúil.

Ar an gcéad dul síos, léiríonn an fhoirm ghearáin féin go raibh an Gearánach go hiomlán ar an eolas faoi bhunús fíorasach a ghearáin agus go raibh sé in ann an gearán sin a chur in iúl go mion. Tá cuntas fada ar theagmhais an 11 Nollaig 2024 san fhoirm ghearáin, sainaithnítear an pionósú líomhnaithe, sainaithnítear na páirtithe lena mbaineann agus leagtar amach go soiléir an bunús dlí ar a gcuirtear an gearán chun cinn.

Ar an dara dul síos, cé gur léirigh an Gearánach rogha maidir le himeachtaí a stiúradh trí mheán na Gaeilge, ba léir ón bhfianaise a thug sé ag an éisteacht, fianaise a thug sé i mBéarla tar éis imeacht forfheidhmithe an ateangaire Ghaeilge le linn a chuid fianaise ar lá 2, go bhfuil ardleibhéal cumais aige sa Bhéarla. Chomh maith leis sin, d’oibrigh sé ar feadh tuairim is dhá bhliain go leith mar Fheidhmeannach Cumarsáide leis an bhFreagróir in ionad oibre ina labhraítear Béarla den chuid is mó agus rinne sé cumarsáid rialta i mBéarla mar chuid den ról sin.

Dréachtaíodh an ríomhphost atá i gcroílár an aighnis seo i mBéarla den chuid is mó agus léirítear leis ceannas sofaisticiúil ar Bhéarla scríofa. Tá argóintí, breathnuithe agus tráchtaireacht mhionsonraithe ann a chuirtear in iúl go líofa agus go héifeachtach. Tá ábhar agus stíl an ríomhphoist ar neamhréir go hiomlán le moladh nach raibh an Gearánach in ann ábhair nó nósanna imeachta reachtacha Béarla a thuiscint, a rochtain nó a úsáid.

Ar an tríú dul síos, ceanglaím go mór leis an bhfíric gur éirigh leis an nGearánach imeachtaí eile a bhaineann le fostaíocht a thionscnamh a d’eascair as na cúinsí fíorasacha céanna go maith laistigh den tréimhse theorann reachtúil, is é sin an gearán faoi dhífhostú éagórach ar thug mé aghaidh air in ADJ 57416. Tionscnaíodh na himeachtaí sin os comhair an Choimisiúin um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre i mí an Mhárta 2025, níos mó ná trí mhí roimh dhul in éag na tréimhse theorann is infheidhme maidir leis an ngearán reatha. Léirítear leis sin ní hamháin go raibh an Gearánach ar an eolas faoi nósanna imeachta an Choimisiúin um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre ach freisin go raibh sé in ann cúiseanna reachtúla caingne féideartha a shainaithint, foirmeacha gearáin a ullmhú agus dul i ngleic leis an bpróiseas reachtúil um réiteach díospóidí le linn na tréimhse ábhartha. Ós rud é go raibh sé in ann gearán eile a shaothrú a d’eascair as an maitrís fhíorasach chéanna, baineann sé go mór dá dhearbhú gur chuir easpa téacsanna reachtaíochta Gaeilge cosc air an gearán sin a shaothrú taobh istigh d’am.

Ar an gceathrú dul síos, níor cuireadh aon fhianaise i láthair ina sainaithnítear aon ghníomh sonrach ar cuireadh cosc ar an nGearánach é a dhéanamh de bharr easpa leaganacha Gaeilge den reachtaíocht. Cé go measann an Gearánach go soiléir go bhfuil easpa téacsanna Gaeilge míshásúil agus míbhuntáisteach, ní leor dearbhú ginearálta míbhuntáiste. Éilítear leis an tástáil is infheidhme míniú ar an moill agus nasc cúisíoch inléirithe idir na cúinsí a bhfuiltear ag brath orthu agus an mhainneachtain an gearán a chur i láthair laistigh den tréimhse fhorordaithe. Nílim sásta go bhfuil a leithéid de nasc bunaithe.

Maidir le spleáchas an Ghearánaigh ar Airteagal 25.4.6° den Bhunreacht, rialaítear leis an bhforáil sin réiteach coimhlintí idir téacs Gaeilge agus téacs Béarla de chuid Achta ina bhfuil an dá théacs ann. Ní fhorchuirtear léi aon cheanglas go mbeadh reachtaíocht ar fáil i nGaeilge sular féidir brath ar chearta agus oibleagáidí reachtúla, ná ní phléitear léi na cúinsí inar féidir moill ar ghearán a thíolacadh a shaoradh chun críocha alt 41(8) den Acht um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre, 2015. Dá réir sin, ní fhoráiltear léi aon bhunús ar leith le cúis réasúnta a aimsiú.

Tugaim faoi deara freisin go raibh an Gearánach ar an eolas faoin bpionósú líomhnaithe ón dáta ar tharla sé. Ní raibh aon mholadh ann nach raibh eolas aige ar na fíorais ba chúis leis an ngearán, ar fhéiniúlacht an Fhreagróra ná ar chineál an tsáraithe líomhnaithe. Bhí na himeachtaí ábhartha ar eolas aige ón 11 Nollaig 2024 ar aghaidh.

Tá sé tábhachtach a thabhairt faoi deara go luíonn an t-ualach ar an nGearánach cúis réasúnta a bhunú leis an moill. Ní leor imthoisc a shainaithint a deirtear a chruthaigh deacracht nó míchaoithiúlacht. Ina ionad sin, ní mór don Ghearánach an tOifigeach Breithniúcháin a shásamh gurb í an imthoisc ar a mbraitear ba chúis iarbhír leis an mainneachtain an gearán a chur i láthair laistigh den tréimhse reachtúil. Ar an bhfianaise atá os mo chomhair, níor urscaoileadh an t-ualach sin.

Agus na hábhair go léir roimhe seo á gcur san áireamh, lena n-áirítear fad sách gearr na moille, níl mé sásta gur léirigh an Gearánach cúis réasúnach leis an moill ar an ngearán seo a chur i láthair. Go háirithe, nílim sásta gurbh é easpa leaganacha Gaeilge den reachtaíocht ábhartha ba chúis leis an moill, ná nílim sásta gur imthoisc a bhí ann a chuir cosc ar an nGearánach an gearán a thaisceadh laistigh den tréimhse reachtúil.

Dá réir sin, cinnim gur cuireadh an gearán i láthair lasmuigh den teorainn ama reachtúil sé mhí a fhorordaítear le halt 41(6) den Acht um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre, 2015 agus nár bunaíodh aon bhunús le síneadh ama de bhun alt 41(8) den Acht sin.

Ós rud é nár cuireadh an gearán i láthair laistigh den tréimhse teorann is infheidhme, níl aon dlínse agam fiosrú a dhéanamh faoin ngearán substainteach.

CA-00073367-001: Níl aon dlínse agam fiosrú a dhéanamh faoin ngearán substainteach ar na cúiseanna a leagtar amach thuas.

CA-00073367-002: Tarraingíodh siar an gearán seo.

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Seanán  Ó Coistín

Food Safety Authority of Ireland

Representatives

Peadar Ó Maolain BL instructed by

Paul Gough Beauchamps LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00073367-001

11/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00073367-002

11/07/2025

The Complainant allege that he made a protected disclosure by highlighting the absence of Irish-language competence within the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and that he was penalised for doing so when he was placed on administrative leave and removed from the workplace on 11 December 2024. He contends that this action constituted retaliation for raising concerns regarding the Respondent's Irish-language capability.

The Complainant stated that he made a protected disclosure when, on 11 December 2024, he circulated an email to the Respondent's staff highlighting what he described as the complete absence of Irish-language capacity within the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, a public body with statutory language obligations.

The Complainant stated that he disclosed information concerning a matter of public importance, namely the inability of a State agency to operate through the State's first official language.

The Complainant asserted that management reacted negatively to this disclosure and that, on the same day, he was placed on administrative leave and instructed to leave the workplace immediately without being afforded an opportunity to explain or discuss the contents of his email.

He alleged that this treatment was retaliatory in nature and constituted penalisation within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

He stated that management were angered by his disclosure because it publicly exposed shortcomings within the organisation regarding Irish-language competence. In his view, the decision to place him on administrative leave was not a neutral administrative measure but rather an act of reprisal arising from his disclosure.

The Complainant further alleged that the investigation which followed was part of the adverse treatment he experienced after making the disclosure.

In relation to the delay in presenting his complaint, the Complainant stated that the absence of Irish-language versions of legislation relevant to his claim placed him at a disadvantage in pursuing his legal rights and contributed to the delay in lodging the complaint.

The Respondent's primary position was that the complaint was presented outside the statutory six-month time limit and should therefore not be entertained. They stated that the alleged act of penalisation occurred on 11 December 2024 when the Complainant was placed on administrative leave, whereas the complaint was not presented until 11 July 2025.

The Respondent further stated that no reasonable cause has been established to justify an extension of time.

Without prejudice to that preliminary objection, the Respondent asserted that the email of 11 December 2024 does not constitute a protected disclosure within the meaning of section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

They stated that the email amounted to an expression of the Complainant's views regarding the Irish language and the level of Irish-language competence within the organisation and did not disclose any relevant wrongdoing as defined by the Act.

The Respondent further stated that the Complainant's administrative leave was unrelated to any alleged disclosure. Rather, it arose because three employees complained about the language and content of the email, particularly references suggesting that people who did not learn Irish were either "anti-Irish racist" or "lazy".

The Respondent asserted that they were obliged to investigate those complaints and that administrative leave was a reasonable and proportionate measure pending that investigation.

The Respondent also stated that the Complainant suffered no financial loss because he remained on full pay during the period of administrative leave until the expiry of his fixed-term placement on 31 December 2024.

They further asserted that the non-renewal of the Complainant's contract of employment could not have been connected to the email because the decision not to extend the assignment had already been communicated to the employment agency several weeks before the email was sent.

Finally, the Respondent rejected the contention that any adverse action was taken because of concerns raised regarding the Irish language and denied any anti-Irish sentiment within the organisation.

CA-00073367-001:

Preliminary Matter: Time Limits

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was presented outside the time limits prescribed by section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

The alleged act of penalisation relied upon by the Complainant is his placement on administrative leave on 11 December 2024. The complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission on 11 July 2025.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that an Adjudication Officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under that section if it has been presented after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. An extension of up to a further six months may be granted pursuant to section 41(8) where the failure to present the complaint within the prescribed period was due to reasonable cause.

A period of six months beginning on 11 December 2024 runs, on the ordinary corresponding-date basis by which such periods are computed, up to but not including 11 June 2025, the date numerically corresponding to the date of the contravention in the sixth subsequent month. The period accordingly expired on 10 June 2025. The complaint, presented on 11 July 2025, was therefore outside the six month limitation period, the delay amounting to approximately one month.

The Complainant stated that difficulties arose because the legislation relevant to his claim was not available in Irish and that this placed him at a disadvantage in preparing and presenting his case. He stated that this delayed his ability to bring proceedings. He additionally invoked Article 25.4.6° of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which provides that where the Irish and English texts of an enrolled Act conflict, the Irish text prevails.

The test for reasonable cause has been considered in a substantial body of Labour Court jurisprudence, including Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0338, where the Court held that a complainant must demonstrate reasons which both explain the delay and excuse the delay, and that there must be a causal connection between the matters relied upon and the failure to lodge the complaint within time. The Court in that determination also identified the length of the delay as a relevant consideration in assessing whether an extension should be granted. I have had regard to that factor here. The delay in this case, at approximately one month beyond the primary limitation period, is comparatively short. However, a short delay does not of itself supply reasonable cause. The Complainant must still establish reasons which explain and excuse the delay and demonstrate a causal connection between those reasons and the failure to present the complaint within time. The relative brevity of the delay does not assist him where such a causal connection has not been established.

Having carefully considered the Complainant's submissions, I am not satisfied that the absence of Irish-language versions of certain statutes prevented him from lodging his complaint within the statutory period.

Firstly, the complaint form itself demonstrates both that the Complainant was fully aware of the factual basis of his complaint and capable of articulating that complaint in considerable detail. The complaint form contains a lengthy account of the events of 11 December 2024, identifies the alleged penalisation, identifies the parties concerned and clearly sets out the legal basis upon which the complaint is advanced.

Secondly, while the Complainant expressed a preference for conducting proceedings through the medium of Irish, it was clear from his evidence at the hearing, which he gave in English after the enforced departure of the Irish language interpreter during his evidence on day 2, that he possesses a high level of English-language competence. He also worked for approximately two and a half years as a Communications Executive with the Respondent in a predominantly English-speaking workplace and regularly communicated in English as part of that role.

The email at the centre of this dispute was drafted substantially in English and demonstrates a sophisticated command of written English. It contains detailed arguments, observations and commentary expressed fluently and effectively. The content and style of the email are entirely inconsistent with a proposition that the Complainant was unable to understand, access or utilise English-language legislative materials or procedures.

Thirdly, I attach significant weight to the fact that the Complainant successfully initiated other employment-related proceedings arising from the same factual circumstances well within the statutory limitation period, namely the unfair dismissal complaint which I have addressed in ADJ 57416. Those proceedings were initiated before the Workplace Relations Commission in March 2025, more than three months before the expiry of the limitation period applicable to the present complaint. This demonstrates not only that the Complainant was aware of the Workplace Relations Commission's procedures but also that he was capable of identifying potential statutory causes of action, preparing complaint forms and engaging with the statutory dispute resolution process during the relevant period. The fact that he was able to pursue another complaint arising from the same factual matrix substantially undermines his assertion that the absence of Irish-language legislative texts prevented him from pursuing this complaint within time.

Fourthly, no evidence was presented identifying any specific action which the Complainant was prevented from taking by reason of the lack of Irish-language versions of the legislation. While the Complainant clearly considers the absence of Irish-language texts to be unsatisfactory and disadvantageous, a general assertion of disadvantage is insufficient. The applicable test requires an explanation for the delay and a demonstrable causal connection between the circumstances relied upon and the failure to present the complaint within the prescribed period. I am not satisfied that such a connection has been established.

As to the Complainant's reliance on Article 25.4.6° of the Constitution, that provision governs the resolution of conflicts between the Irish and English texts of an Act where both texts exist. It does not impose any requirement that legislation be available in Irish before statutory rights and obligations can be relied upon, nor does it speak to the circumstances in which a delay in presenting a complaint may be excused for the purposes of section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. Accordingly, it provides no separate basis for a finding of reasonable cause.

I also note that the Complainant was aware of the alleged penalisation from the date upon which it occurred. There was no suggestion that he lacked knowledge of the facts giving rise to the complaint, the identity of the Respondent, or the nature of the alleged contravention. The relevant events were known to him from 11 December 2024 onwards.

It is important to note that the burden rests on the Complainant to establish reasonable cause for the delay. It is not sufficient to identify a circumstance which is said to have created difficulty or inconvenience. Rather, the Complainant must satisfy the Adjudication Officer that the circumstance relied upon actually caused the failure to present the complaint within the statutory period. On the evidence before me, that burden has not been discharged.

Taking all of the foregoing matters into account, including the comparatively short duration of the delay, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in presenting this complaint. In particular, I am not satisfied that the absence of Irish-language versions of the relevant legislation was the cause of the delay, nor am I satisfied that it constituted a circumstance which prevented the Complainant from lodging the complaint within the statutory period.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint was presented outside the six-month statutory time limit prescribed by section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and that no basis has been established for an extension of time pursuant to section 41(8) of that Act.

As the complaint was not presented within the applicable limitation period, I have no jurisdiction to inquire into the substantive complaint.

CA-00073367-001: I have no jurisdiction to inquire into the substantive complaint for the reasons set out above.

CA-00073367-002: This complaint was withdrawn.