FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 29(1), SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE AT WORK ACT, 2005 PARTIES : CARROLL CUISINE LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MICHAEL MURPHY DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Decision R-094716-HS-10/JC.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's Decision R-094716-HS-10/JC. The Worker was formerly employed by the Company as an Operations Manager during the period from July 2008, until March, 2010. Following the termination of his employment the Worker presented a claim to a Rights Commissioner under Section 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. On the 19th April, 2011 the Rights Commissioner issued her Decision as follows:
"In all the circumstances of this case I find that the Claimant has not proven a link between his complaint of bullying and the termination of his employment. I declare that the complaint is not well founded and I find against it".
The Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 29(1) of theSafety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005on the 27th May, 2011. The Court heard the appeal on the 25th September, 2012. The Worker was not present and was not represented at the hearing.
The following is the Determination of the Court:
DETERMINATION:
The case comes before the Court by way of an appeal under Section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 (“the Act”) by Mr Michael Murphy (“the Complainant”) against a Decision of the Rights Commissioner under Section 27 of the Act. The Rights Commissioner did not find in favour of the Complainant’s complaint. The Complainant appealed the Decision of the Rights Commissioner.
The appeal hearing was scheduled for Tuesday 25thSeptember 2012. By written correspondence to the Court dated 11thSeptember 2012 the Complainant’s Solicitors informed the Court that they were no longer acting on behalf of the Complainant and accordingly would not be representing him at the appeal hearing. The Complainant was informed of the date, time and location of the appeal hearing but failed to appear on the day, did not communicate with the Court and was not represented.
In such circumstances the Court could not proceed to hear the appeal.
Therefore, the appeal fails for lack of prosecution and the Rights Commissioner’s Decision stands.
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st October 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.