Call Us 016111546
Blog Layout
Time Limit for Appeals to the Labour Court
In general, an appeal to the Labour Court must take place within 42 days from the issuing of the decision of the WRC, unless exceptional circumstances can be proven by the party making the appeal.
Introduction
A recent decision by the Labour Court highlights some of the issues surrounding the timing of making an appeal from the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
In general, an appeal must take place within 42 days from the issuing of the decision of the WRC, unless exceptional circumstances can be proven by the party making the appeal.
Time Limit for Appeal to Labour Court
The Workplace Relations Act (the Act of 2015) at Section 44(3) and 44(4) applies to a decision of an Adjudication Officer given in respect of a claim for redress under the Act, and provide as follows
44 (3) Subject to subsection (4), a notice under subsection (2) shall be given to the Labour Court not later than 42 days from the date of the decision concerned.
(4) The Labour Court may direct that a notice under subsection (2) may be given to it after the expiration of the period specified in subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the notice was not so given before such expiration due to the existence of exceptional circumstances.
In Gaelscoil Thulach na nOg and Joyce Fitzimons-Markey
(EET034), the Labour Court considered what would be ‘exceptional circumstances’ to permit an appeal outside of the 42 day limit:
“The Court must first consider if the circumstances relied upon by the applicant can be regarded as exceptional. If it answers that question in the affirmative the Court must then go on to consider if those circumstances operated so as to prevent the applicant from lodging her claim in time.
The term exceptional is an ordinary familiar English adjective and not a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception, which is out of the ordinary course or unusual or special or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique or unprecedented or very rare; but it cannot be one which is regular or routinely or normally encountered.”
The burden of proof in establishing the existence of exceptional circumstances rests with the party making the appeal.
Application of Facts
In McNelis Hospitality Bars Ltd and Mr Stephen O'Dowd
(CA-00021986-002), McNelis Hospitality Bars Limited, appealed against the decision of the WRC given under a claim made by Stephen O’Dowd, pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
McNeils submitted that the appeal had been made after the time period allowed by the Act of 2015 through error and because a bank holiday had fallen in the period of time allowed for the making of an appeal of the decision of the WRC. McNeils submitted that these circumstances amounted to ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of the Act at Section 44(4) of the Act of 2015.
The Labour Court held that an error of McNeils’s legal adviser did not satisfy the requirement under the Act at Section 44(4), establishing that exceptional circumstances existed in this case such as to have prevented the lodging of the within appeal within 42 days of the date of the decision of the WRC.
Conclusion
The Labour Court therefore could not find that time should be extended for the making of the within appeal. For that reason, the Labour Court found that the within appeal was statute-barred and therefore must fail, affirming the original decision of the WRC.
Share
The case of Nkemka Patrick Okachi v Sodexo Ireland Limited ADJ-00045306 examines the circumstances under which an employer will be compelled to utilise CCTV footage as part of an investigation and disciplinary process.
The case of Ioan Pop v City Break Apartments Limited (ADJ-00045335) examines the circumstances under which an employer will be deemed to have acted reasonably, when terminating the employment of an employee for gross misconduct.
The case of Denis McCallig v Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) (ADJ00052727) examines the circumstances under which an employee will be considered to have been made redundant, retired, or alternatively resigned.
The case of Aline Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd (ADJ-00051600) examines the obligations employers have, under Irish law, when a request for remote work is made by an employee. As the law in Ireland currently stands, there is no right to remote work per se. This may be overcome when an individual has been guaranteed remote work in their contract of employment or remote work has been determined to constitute a reasonable accommodation in accordance with relevant employment legislation, where applicable. However, none of these exceptions applied in the present case.
The case of Dean Hart v Komfort Kare (ADJ00051923) examines the circumstances under which a request for time off, by a parent, from their employer, must be given due consideration.
Dean Hart (the Complainant) brought a complaint under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 against Komfort Kare (the Respondent) to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), alleging that they denied him the right to take force majeure despite extenuating circumstances.
The case of Care Worker v Costern Unlimited Company (ADJ00046268) examines the circumstances under which it will be deemed reasonable for an employee to resign and bring a claim of unfair dismissal by way of constructive dismissal on foot of a failure of their employer to properly investigate their complaints.
Contact Us
For a preliminary assessment of your legal matter, please complete the form below. We will be in contact to advise of your potential options and schedule a consultation.
Find Us
Crushell & Co
1 Arran Square
Dublin D07 PA0D
7 Bell Yard
London WC2A 2JR
Legal Notice
*In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.