ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004031
Complaints for Resolution:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00005822-001 | 13th July 2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00005822-002 | 13th July 2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00005822-003 | 13th July 2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00005822-004 | 13th July 2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 2nd March 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 13th July 2017, the complainant referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. The complaints were scheduled for adjudication on the 2nd March 2017. The complainant operates a driving school franchise and the respondent is a provider of driving school franchises.
At the time the adjudication was scheduled to commence, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant. I verified that the complainant was notified of the time, date and venue of the adjudication. Having been satisfied of this, and waiting some time for a late arrival, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the complainant. The respondent was represented by Paul Rochford, IBEC and three witnesses attended on its behalf.
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant did not attend the hearing and did not offer any reasonable explanation for her failure to do so.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The respondent attended the adjudication and was ready to meet the claim. It disputed that the complainant was an employee within the definition of the statutes under which these complaints are brought.
Findings and conclusions:
As the complainant did not attend the hearing and did not offer any reasonable explanation for her failure to do so, the complaint falls for want of prosecution.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint.
CA-00005822-001
As the complainant did not attend the hearing, the complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act falls for want of prosecution.
CA-00005822-002
As the complainant did not attend the hearing, the complaint made pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act falls for want of prosecution.
CA-00005822-003
As the complainant did not attend the hearing, the complaint made pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act falls for want of prosecution.
CA-00005822-004
As the complainant did not attend the hearing, the complaint made pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act falls for want of prosecution.
Dated: 15th May 2017