Servecentric Ltd (Represented by Mark O'Connell B.L. Instructed by Dillon Eustace Solicitors) v Mr. Eddie Lyons (Represented by Alastair Purdy S.C. Instructed by Purdy & Company Solicitors)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2022 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2022] 12 JIEC 1201 |
| Docket Number | FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00033443 CA-00044004-001 DETERMINATION NO. UDD2271 SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 |
| Court | Labour Court (Ireland) |
FULL RECOMMENDATION
UD/22/52
ADJ-00033443 CA-00044004-001
DETERMINATION NO. UDD2271
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015
Full Court
Chairman: Ms Connolly
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Ms Treacy
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00033443 CA-00044044-001.
2. The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officerto the Labour Court on 6 April 2020 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 November 2022. The following is the Determination of the Court:-
This is an appeal by Mr Eddie Lyons against the decision of an Adjudicator Officer (ADJ-00033443 — dated 03 March 2022) under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“the Act”). The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well founded. A Notice of Appeal was received by the Labour Court on 6 April 2022 and a hearing of the Court held on 16 November 2022.
For ease of reference the parties are given the same designation as they had at first instance. Hence Mr Lyons is referred to as “ the Complainant” and Servecentric Ltd is referred to as “ the Respondent”.
Two preliminary issues were raised with the Court addressing its jurisdiction to hear the appeal:—(i) an application for an extension of time and (ii) the status of the termination agreement entered into between the parties.
It is accepted that on the 15 May 2020 the Complainant's role as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was terminated by reason of redundancy. A claim against the Respondent was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 11 May 2021, which is nearly six months outside the time limit allowed under the Act. The Act allows a complaint to be submitted within 12 months of the dismissal where reasonable cause exists. Mr Alistair Purdy SC, on behalf of the Complainant, submits that there is reasonable cause to grant an extension of time on the facts of this case.
When the Complainant's employment was terminated in May 2020, he understood that the termination was by virtue of the role of CEO being redundant. The Complainant did not dispute the fact of redundancy at the time. The dismissal was not in dispute between the dismissal date on 15 May 2020 and 30 April 2021. The dispute only arose on the 1 May 2021 when the Complainant became aware that the role of CEO had been filled by the Respondent, which called into question the validity of his dismissal. Had the Complainant known that no valid redundancy existed, he would have lodged a complaint sooner. The Complainant lodged a complaint immediately once he became aware of the situation. It is accepted that this occurred 11 months after his termination.
Mr Purdy acknowledged that ignorance of the law does not excuse a delay in lodging an appeal but submits that where knowledge of the facts is the operative reason for a delay an application seeking an extension should be granted.
Mr Mark O'Connell B.L., on behalf of the Respondent, submits that the Complainant's employment was terminated by reason of a legitimate redundancy in May 2020. At the time he acknowledged that his role had become redundant and did not raise any issue with his termination. He never challenged the process or appealed the decision. He had six months within which to lodge a claim for relief under the Act but failed to do so. The established case law requires there to be a direct relationship between the “reasonable cause” for the delay and the failure to comply with the statutory time limit...
To continue reading
Request your trial