ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007157
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | A Security Guard | A Provider of Security Services |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00009639-001 | 9th February 2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21st June 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 9th February 2017, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations, 2003. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 21st June 2017.
At the outset of the adjudication, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant. I verified that the complainant had been sent notice of the time, date and venue of the adjudication. I also waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. The complainant was contacted by the Workplace Relations Commission to see if he was attending the hearing. The complainant indicated that he had received notice of the hearing and that he would not be attending. The respondent attended the adjudication to meet the claim.
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the adjudication to advance his case. He indicated in a telephone call to the Workplace Relations Commission on the day of the hearing that he had received notice of the hearing and that he would not be attending the adjudication. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the adjudication to meet the claim. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the complainant did not attend the adjudication to advance his claim, I find that the claim fails for want of prosecution. |
Decision:
Section 41 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.
CA-00009639-001 As the complainant did not attend the adjudication, I decide that the claim made pursuant to the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations, 2003 is not well founded and fails for want of prosecution. |
Dated: 9/8/17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words: