ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005032

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/12/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Aideen Collard

Procedure:

The aforesaid complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 was received by the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘WRC’) on 21^st September 2016. In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the Director General referred the complaint to me for adjudication. I proceeded to hearing on 9^th December 2016 and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any relevant evidence.  There was no appearance on behalf of either Party and no application for an adjournment had been made by either Party to the WRC. I made enquiries as to their whereabouts with reception so as to satisfy myself that there was no attendance and otherwise remained in the hearing room for the duration of the scheduled hearing.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant submitted his complaint against the Respondent under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 to the WRC on 21^st September 2016 in relation to a payment of outstanding wages upon the termination of his employment on 27^th June 2016. Letters dated 1^st November 2016 issued to both Parties notifying them with the date, venue and time of the hearing of this complaint. By email dated 15^th November 2016, the Complainant contacted the WRC confirming that as he had left the jurisdiction it would be impossible for him to attend the hearing and that: “I am available via email, phone or Skype if necessary.” By email dated 18^th November 2016, the WRC advised the Complainant that he would have to be present at his hearing. He did not make any further contact with the WRC or request an adjournment. There was no attendance on his behalf at the hearing of this complaint in Room G.06, Lansdowne House, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 on 9^th December 2016 at 10.30am. The Complainant therefore did not proffer any evidence in support of his complaint.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

Neither was there any appearance on behalf of the Respondent, a limited liability company. Upon checking the CRO records, the address provided by the Complainant was not its registered address, the named contact persons were not the directors and its current status was ‘Strike Off Listed’. The WRC received an email dated 4^th November 2016 from a person acting on behalf of the contact persons named in the complaint form to the WRC confirming that they were neither directors, shareholders or officers of the Respondent, that the address used was not its registered address and advised that the Complainant write to the directors at the correct address provided. On 10^th November 2016, the WRC forwarded this email onto the Complainant, requesting that he inform the WRC of any comments he had in writing. In his email dated 15^th November 2016 to the WRC as referred to above, the Complainant simply confirmed that the named contact persons were the last persons he had dealings with when leaving the Respondent and did not instruct the WRC to change the address for the Respondent or notify it at its registered address of the scheduled hearing date.

Decision:

Based upon the aforesaid email exchange, I am satisfied that the Complainant was aware of the hearing date and did not have anyone attend on his behalf or otherwise seek an adjournment to facilitate his return to the jurisdiction to deal with same when advised that he should attend. I find the Complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing to pursue his complaint unreasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, his complaint fails for lack of evidence and is accordingly dismissed.

Dated:   9^th February 2017