Preliminary Issues Before the Workplace Relations Commission

Introduction

When an individual files a complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), they are required to ensure that the complaint conforms with certain procedural requirements. Ordinarily, the WRC expects that the correct respondent employer is named, the employee has cited the applicable legislation and that the complaint is filed in time.

For various reasons, an employee is required to ordinarily file a complaint within six months of the infringement arising. That time limit can be extended by a further six months, to twelve months, if exceptional circumstances arise.

However, even where preliminary issues, such as the late filing of a complaint are cited, very often, the substantive cases are heard, resulting in an Adjudication Officer inviting submissions, hearing witness statements, and drafting a detailed decision. This can be a time consuming and costly endeavour.

In the recent case of Kevin Stapleton -v- Acushla Limited (ADJ00037399), the respondent employer argued that the filing of the complaint was out of time and therefore the Adjudication Officer did not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim. They cited Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 which sets out that an Adjudication Officer can only entertain a complaint if submitted within six months or within twelve months where a reasonable cause has been afforded.

The established case law places an onus on the complainant to identify the reason for the delay and to establish that the reason relied upon provides a justifiable excuse for the actual delay. However, in many cases, that reason is afforded, and the case is heard. The respondent, in this instance, sought that the Adjudication Officer decide on the preliminary issue first before hearing the substantive case.

There is a body of case law which suggests an Adjudication Officer is precluded by law from holding a substantive hearing until a decision on the preliminary matter is in fact reached.

Case Law on Preliminary Issues before the WRC

In Mary Sheehy v Most Reverend James Moriarty UD1264/2008 the Tribunal held that ‘’the Tribunal was set up under statute by the Oireachtas and did not have the authority based on constitutional or natural law and justice principles to conduct a hearing’’ where ‘’the claims were not instituted within the time periods set out in the legislation’’.

Equally, in the case of Guerin v SR Technics Ireland Limited UD969/2009, the Employment Appeals Tribunal was asked to make a decision on a preliminary matter first before moving to hearing the substantive case. Given the significant preliminary points raised, the Tribunal moved to hear the preliminary matter first and reach a decision on same.

In the case of Bus Eireann v SIPTU PTD8/2004 the Labour Court indicated that a preliminary point should be determined separately from other issues arising in a case ‘where it could lead to considerable savings in both time and expense’ and where the point was ‘a question of pure law where no evidence was needed and where no further information was required’.

Equally in the case of Donal Gillespie and Donegal Meat Processors UD/20/135 the Labour Court dealt with the matter by expressing the view that in asking for the substantive issue and the jurisdictional issue to be dealt with together was “akin to asking the court to exercise its jurisdiction before it determines whether or not it has jurisdiction in the first instance. In determining the issue of jurisdiction, the Court must confine itself to the nature of the termination without enquiring into the fairness or otherwise of the decision itself, having regard to submissions made on the preliminary issue by both parties, the documents referred to therein and the relevant statutory provisions. Only if the court determines that it has jurisdiction to do so can it go on to consider the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal itself”. 

Also, in Eddie Lyons and Servecentric Ltd UD/22/52 the Court found that “the within claim was out of time when it was presented to the WRC on 11 May 2021 and is accordingly statute barred the court determines that it has no jurisdiction to hear the substantive matter”.

Accordingly, the respondent asked that the Adjudication Officer make a determination on the issue of jurisdiction having regard to submissions made on the preliminary issue by both parties before proceeding further.

Conclusion of the Adjudication Officer

Having reviewed the circumstances as to why the complaint was filed outside of the applicable time limits, the Adjudication Officer determined that, having been provided with no reasonable explanation, she did not have the jurisdiction to investigate the complaint as it was out of time.

This decision should be welcome by all parties, both employers and employees, to WRC proceedings. WRC proceedings can be quite time consuming as well as financially draining on parties who have availed of legal representation. By affording the parties early confirmation on the preliminary issues, an Adjudication Officer can avoid an excessive amount of time being spent addressing a complaint which would be bound to fail on a technical reason, in any event.