ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000216

Complaint for Resolution:

Dates of Adjudication Hearing: 14th April 2016, 13th July 2016, 12th and 13th October 2016.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seán Reilly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 80 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Also in attendance on behalf of the Respondent were:   A Solicitor, A Trainee Solicitor, The CEO, the CFO, The Office Manager, The Director of Online Learning and The Design Manager of the Respondent.

Also in attendance on behalf of the Complainant was her husband.                                                                    

Background:

At the first date of the hearing on 14^th April the Complainant presented and read out her detailed written submissions (the Complainant’s written submissions were received by the WRC well before the first date of the hearing and was copied to the Respondent).   Following this the Respondent then presented and read out a shorter statement at the end of which they stated their intention to question the Complainant on all matters related to her complaint.   The hearing was adjourned and it was agreed by all parties that it would need to be resumed and the Complainant agreed to have her witnesses available for that resumed hearing.

Arrangements for the resumed hearing had to be rescheduled on 3 occasions, once at the request of each party and once at the request of the Adjudication Officer.   Eventually it was rescheduled for 13^th July 2015.   In the meantime a letter dated 29^th April 2016 was received by the WRC on 4^th May 2016 from the Complainant in which she raised a number of issues.   On 12^th July 2016, the day before the scheduled hearing, a further letter was received by the WRC from the Complainant also raising issues (it should be noted that due to time at which this correspondence arrived it was not seen by the Adjudication Officer until one hour before the resumed hearing was to commence).

At the resumed hearing on 13^th July 2016, the above two letters from the Complainant were discussed in great detail.   Following this discussion the Complainant indicated that she wished the Adjudication Officer to compel a number of persons to attend as witnesses on her behalf.   Following some discussion the Complainant agreed to provide more information in relation to her request to have a number of persons compelled to attend as witnesses at the next day of the hearings on her behalf.   The two dates of 12^th and 13^th October 2016, were agreed between all parties as suitable for the resumed hearings.   It was also agreed that on the morning of 12^th October 2016, the Respondent would question the Complainant and in the afternoon the Complainant’s witnesses would be dealt with and it was anticipated that this could be concluded in that day.   The remainder of matters would be dealt with on 13^th October 2016.

However in relation to the question of compelling persons to attend upon further reviewing the matter the Adjudication Officer found he did not have the power to compel persons to attend under the Unfair Dismissals Act alone or only.   Accordingly, on the instructions of the Adjudication Officer, the WRC wrote to the Complainant on 20^th September 2016 and informed her of that fact.

The Complainant wrote to WRC, by letter dated 5^th October, received on 7^th October 2016, in response to the above and raised a number of further issues in this detailed 7 page letter and concluded by stating that in the circumstances she was not satisfied to proceed with the scheduled hearings set for 12^th and 13^th October 2016.   This letter was responded to by the WRC Registrar by email and post on 10^th October 2016, in which the Registrar responded to the issues raised by the Complainant.   In this letter the Complainant was informed: “The hearing will go ahead as scheduled on the 12^th and 13^th of this month and any issues in relation to fair procedures can be raised with the Adjudication Officer directly.”

The Complainant replied to this by email and post on 11^th October 2016, again rising issues and again apparently confirming that it was not her intention to attend the resumed hearing on 12^th and 13^th October 2016.

The Complainant did not attend at the Hearing on 12^th and 13^th October 2016.

At the hearing on 12^th October 2016, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had been notified of the date time and location of the hearing and had confirmed this fact.   They said that it had also been further confirmed to her by letters from the WRC of 20th September 2016 and in particular by correspondence as recent as 10^th October 2016 that the hearings would proceed as scheduled on 12^th and 13^th October 2016 and that any concerns she had could be raised directly with the Adjudication Officer.   In all the circumstances the Respondent was submitting that the matter must proceed and that the Adjudication Officer must and should now issue a decision and that that decision must and should be that the Complainant’s complaint fails and is rejected for lack of prosecution or in the alternative that it be struck out for the same reason.

I waited more than a further week before preparing this decision, but nothing further was heard from the Complainant.

Findings and Decision:

Section 80 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with Section 7 of the 1977 Act.

In all the circumstances where the Complainant refused or declined to attend the resumed hearings on 12^th and 13^th October 2016, despite being specifically informed in writing that it would proceed (see background above) I must find and declare that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts is not well founded; it is rejected and it fails for lack of prosecution.

Dated: 25 November 2016