This is an appeal by the respondent company against the Adjudication Officer's decision to direct that the complainant be re-engaged within 42 days of the decision and a final written warning be placed on his personnel file.

The respondent had from the outset raised the issue that the claim was time-barred, but the Adjudication Officer had allowed for an extension of time in the circumstances. The respondent raised this issue again at the appeal stage and the Court reviewed the facts.

In summary, the complainant had consulted a solicitor shortly after his dismissal and was given a copy of his completed complaint form by the solicitor. However, 8 months later his trade union learned that the form had not been submitted and immediately submitted a complaint form on that date.

The complainant submitted that he and his union official had acted on the belief that the solicitor had submitted the completed complaint form and the Court sought to determine if this belief was reasonably held. The complainant gave sworn evidence to the Court in support of his claim but did not state that he had formally instructed his solicitor to proceed and refer the complaint to the WRC, or that the solicitor had confirmed he had acted on his instructions. The Court held that a prudent representative would not proceed to refer a statutory complaint on behalf of a client without getting their express instructions to do so.

Accordingly, the Court held that there was no evidence to show that the complainant had a reasonably held belief that that his solicitor had referred the complaint to the WRC and did not satisfy the test of reasonable cause. Thus, the decision of the Adjudication Officer was set aside.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/May/UDD1825.html