ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062765
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jana Gogova | Homefare Services Unlimited Company |
Representatives |
| Robert Jacob, Jacob and Twomey Solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00069908-001 | 28/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00069908-002 | 28/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00069908-003 | 28/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069908-004 | 28/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069908-005 | 28/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069908-006 | 28/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00069908-012 | 28/02/2025 |
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-00069908-013 | 28/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00069908-014 | 28/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/07/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 an employee can present a complaint or complaints or dispute of any perceived contravention by the Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Any such complaint (usually presented in the format of a workplace relations complaint form) is made to the Director General of the WRC. The said Director General can then refer the complaint to the Adjudication services. It is in these circumstances that this matter has come before me - an Adjudication Officer engaged by the Adjudication division of the WRC - to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints made. Where appropriate, I hear the parties’ oral evidence, and I can give consideration to any supporting evidence provided by witnesses or relevant documentation.
In this instance, the Complainant has made a number of complaints of the Employer having contravened Acts contained in Schedule 5 aforesaid. These include contraventions of:
Payment of Wages Act, 1991
Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994
Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004
It is critically important in the context of the within workplace relations complaint form that I, as the assigned Adjudication Officer must be aware of applicable time limits. In this regard, the Workplace Relations Act specifies at Section 41 (6) that (subject to s.s.8) an Adjudication Officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to said Adjudication Officer after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the Complaint relates.
Section 41 (8) specifies that the Adjudication Officer may entertain a Complaint or dispute to which section 41 applies after the expiration of the six month period referred to in ss. (6) and (7) – though not later than a further six months after the initial expiration as the case may be - if the Adjudication Officer is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.
In addition to the above the Complainant has brought a number of complaints concerning discrimination, victimisation and discriminatory dismissal pursuant to her entitlements under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 (as amended).
In general terms, an Adjudication Officer cannot entertain a complaint presented after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Act states:-
“…a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”
In limited circumstances, a complaint presented outside the relevant period may be entertained if the failure to present was due to reasonable cause. This will not exceed a twelve-month period.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as a separate dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 was also being dealt with.
The specific details of the different complaints have been outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 28th of February 2025 and the complaints relate to a period of employment which had ended just over six months previously.
In the interests of fairness, the WRC acquiesced to an application made for the provision of an interpreter. It is noted that the interpreter is provided to assist the Adjudicator to conduct an orderly and fair hearing of the complaints being made by the Complainant in his/her preferred language. The interpreter did not guide or assist the person for whom the interpreter was sought i.e. the Complainant. The Interpreter simply interpreted what was being said by the Complainant. I perceived there to be no difficulty in communication between the Interpreter and he Complainant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and provided an oral account of the facts of the that has brought these parties together before the WRC. The Complainant came alone. The Complainant provided supporting documents when she first issued her complaint form. The Complaint Form is dated the 28th day of February 2025. The Complainant provided further documentation in the run up to the hearing date. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the need for the Complainant to make her case. A preliminary issue concerning time limits arose ad it was appropriate to deal with this issue in the first instance. The Complainant is making the case that her Employer contravened a number of Statutes in the course of the employment. The problem for the Complainant was the fact that the employment had already ended a full six months before this matter was brought to the attention of the WRC. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was further represented by the presence of its HR Manager JC. The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submission received by the WRC on the 20th of July 2026. The HR Manager who attended on behalf of the company gave evidence in relation to issues that I asked of her for clarity around certain points. The Respondent has requested that I determine a preliminary issue in the first instance. The Respondent contends that I do not have jurisdiction to investigate this complaint on the basis that more than six months elapsed between the termination of the Complainant's employment and the lodging of the complaint with the WRC. My jurisdiction extends to considering alleged contraventions of employment rights legislation that occurred within the six-month period immediately preceding the presentation of the complaint. The Respondent submits that, in the absence of a subsisting employment relationship, there can be no contravention of employment rights protected by such legislation. Accordingly, the Respondent argues that the existence of a live employment relationship and the occurrence of a legislative contravention are mutually dependent, and that one cannot exist without the other. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As previously noted, the Respondent has argued that I do not have the jurisdiction to hear or entertain the complaints set out in the Complainant’s complaint form (dated the 28th of February 2025) as they have categorically been brought out of time. The complaint form was presented more than six months after the end of the employment. The Complainant asked for an extension of time which is a request that I as the Adjudication Officer may entertain if I am satisfied that initial failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within the Statutory six-month period was due to reasonable cause. It should be emphasised that the requirement that complaints be presented within six months of the alleged contravention reflects a legislative policy that employment disputes should be raised and determined promptly. This serves a number of purposes. It promotes legal certainty and finality for both employers and employees, ensures that complaints are investigated while evidence remains available and reliable, and reduces the risk of prejudice arising from faded memories, unavailable witnesses, or the loss of relevant documentation. The limitation period also recognises that employment relationships often involve ongoing workplace interactions and that disputes are best addressed as close as possible to the events giving rise to them. More broadly, limitation periods are a feature of the administration of justice generally. They seek to balance the right of an individual to pursue a claim against the legitimate expectation of a respondent not to face indefinite exposure to legal proceedings. By imposing a six-month time limit, subject to extension in prescribed circumstances, the Oireachtas has indicated that allegations of statutory breaches should ordinarily be prosecuted with expedition. The limitation period is therefore not merely procedural. It reflects an underlying public interest in the timely resolution of employment disputes, and in ensuring that claims are adjudicated on the basis of the best available evidence. The longer the delay between the alleged contravention and the presentation of the complaint, the greater the risk that the fact-finding process will be impaired. The go-to consideration of the concept of “reasonable cause” is the Labour Court decision in Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0338 28/10/2003, wherein the Court set about defining the issue of “reasonable cause”. It should be noted that the deliberation of the Court on that occasion was in the in the context of a similar provision to S.41(8) contained in the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Section 27(5) which said: “Not withstanding subsection (4) a Rights Commissioner may entertain a complaint under this section presented to him or her after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (4) (but not later than 12 months of such expiration) if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint within that period was due to reasonable cause” The Labour Court stated: “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 and excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not 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.” I am bound to follow the long line of authorities opened up by the Respondent herein. I also reference the case of Servier Ireland Industries Limited V Juanita Wilkinson EDA 1713 wherein the Labour Court held: “It is clear from the authorities that the test places the onus on the applicant for an extension of time to identify the reason for the delay and to establish that the reason relied upon provides justifiable excuse for the actual delay. Secondly, the onus is on the applicant to establish a causal connection between the reason proffered for the delay and his or her failure to present the complaint in time. Thirdly, the Court must be satisfied as a matter of probability that the complainant would have been presented in time were it not for the intervention of the factors relied upon as constituting reasonable cause. It is the actual delay that must be explained and justified. Hence if the factors relied upon to explain the delay ceased to operate before the complaint was presented, that may undermine a claim that those factors were the actual cause of the delay. Finally, where the established test imposes a relatively low threshold of reasonableness on an applicant, there is some limitation on the range of issues which can be taken into account.” In short, as an Adjudication Officer I can only extend the time limit if I am satisfied that there are objective reasons that (a) explain the delay and (b) afford a justifiable excuse for it. The Complainant set out her reasons for not submitting her claim within the six-month period provided. Initially the Complainant suggested she was waiting on her ex-Employer to deal with an outstanding Grievance process. The Complainant agreed that she was aware of the six-month time limit and in fact had engaged with the WRC even before the termination of her employment back in July of 2024. She did nothing for August and September and October and November and December of 2024. The Complainant gave evidence that she was sick in January and early February of 2025. The evidence appears to be that the intention to fill out her complaint form did not feature when she was sick. It was only sometime after her recovery that she remembered and made her application. On balance I do not accept that the Complainant has provided me evidence that her failure to issue the complaint from in the first six months was due to reasonable cause. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 CA-00069908-001 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the complaint is out of time. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00069908-002 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the complaint is out of time. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00069908-003 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the complaint is out of time. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00069908-004 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the complaint is out of time. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00069908-005 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the complaint is out of time. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00069908-006 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the complaint is out of time. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00069908-012 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the complaint is out of time. 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-00069908-013 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the complaint is out of time. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00069908-014 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the complaint is out of time. |
Dated: 16/09/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|