Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00001824-001

08/01/2016

The Complainant was in attendance accompanied by her husband. However, when the Hearing was scheduled to commence at 12noon the Respondent was not present. I explained to the Complainant that I was prepared to allow 30 minutes for the Respondent to arrive.

The Respondent had not arrived by 12.30pm (and did not arrive thereafter). At that point I informed the Complainant that as she was in attendance I was willing to hear her complaint presented in more detail. I also informed the Complainant that the Respondent had previously submitted a written submission to the WRC, setting out her version of the events and alleging that the Complainant left her employment of her own accord. I advised the Complainant that I may refer to aspects of this written submission during and after the Complainant’s presentation.

The Complainant stated that she started working with the Respondent in October 2008. The business is a health food retail premises and Chinese medical centre.   The Complainant stated that she worked 3 days a week, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, 8 hours per day.   In early October 2015 the Complainant returned from holidays (having been abroad for a 6 to 7 week period).   She stated that she took holidays of this duration every year, by agreement with the Respondent.

The Complainant stated that prior to returning to work on her return from holidays, the Respondent left a message on her telephone telling her that “business was not good, money was tight, she (the Respondent) had to return to work herself and she would have to let her (the Complainant) go”.

The Complainant stated that she contacted the Respondent by telephone to see what was happening. She stated that over the following two months the Respondent agreed on a number of occasions to meet with the Complainant to discuss the situation but that on each occasion the Respondent either cancelled the meeting or gave some other excuse for being unable to meet. Therefore, in early January 2016 the Complainant made her complaint to the WRC.

The presentation concluded with the Complainant refuting the version of events set out in the Respondent’s submission.   She stated that for her the issue was a matter of principle, as she had been treated very poorly after 8 years’ service.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

As stated above, the Respondent did not attend the Hearing and therefore did not present any evidence in defence of the complaint.

Decision:

I am satisfied that by letter dated 7^th June 2016, the Respondent was properly notified in writing of the venue, date and time of the Hearing at the address provided and that she did not contact the WRC to indicate any difficulty with attending or to seek to have the Hearing postponed. To the best of my knowledge in the period since the Hearing the Respondent has not contacted the WRC to provide an explanation for her non-attendance.

Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts the onus is on the Respondent to show that the dismissal was fair. In this case the Complainant’s submission and presentation conflicts with the details contained in the Respondent’s written submission so that the facts of the dismissal are in dispute. In such circumstances the Adjudication Officer could expect to examine the evidence to establish whether a dismissal took place and if so, was it fair or unfair.

I have taken into account the written submission of the Respondent.   However, I find that her failure to attend the Hearing to defend the complaint and present her evidence is both damning and consistent with much of the evidence presented by the Complainant.   In the circumstances I consider the Complainant’s evidence to be the better evidence and accordingly, my decision is that the dismissal was unfair and I award the Complainant €2,500 in compensation.

Dated:  4/11/2016