ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009245

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A bar worker	A pub

Representatives

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00011810-001	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00011810-002	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00011810-003	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00011810-005	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00011810-006	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00011810-007	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts	CA-00011810-008	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00011810-010	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00011810-011	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00011810-012	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00011810-013	06/06/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00011810-014	06/06/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/10/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, following the referral of the complaints and disputes to me by the Director General, I attempted to inquire into the complaints and disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints and disputes.

Background:

On the complaint form, the complainant named his employer and stated that the company he worked in had its head office at an address different to the place where he worked. The WRC took this to be the address of the respondent.

The complaint form states that the complainant was employed as a bar worker from November 29^th 2017 until April 23^rd 2017. The complaint form was submitted on June 6^th 2017.

On August 22^nd 2017, the complainant sent an e mail to the WRC in which he said that he was on an internship in Chicago and that he would not be back in Ireland until January 2018. He asked if the hearing of his complaints could be done over Skype. He was informed that he must attend in person. On September 1^st, he wrote again to say that he couldn’t attend the hearing and to ask if another staff member at the company where he worked could represent him. He was again informed that he must attend the hearing to present his complaint and to answer questions put to him by the adjudicator. On September 6^th, he again requested a hearing over Skype. On September 7^th, he was informed that this would not be facilitated and that he could request the hearing to be re-scheduled to when he would be back in Ireland in January 2018. He did not reply to this e mail.

On the day of the hearing, a friend of the complainant attended and said that he was asked by the complainant to represent him. He said that had not worked with the complainant and that he knew him from playing football. He said that he didn’t know anything about what had happened between the complainant and his former employer. I explained that the complainant was required to attend in person.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

A manager from the company at the address given by the complainant as his employer’s head office attended the hearing. The manager said that his company is not the respondent in this case and was not the complainant’s employer.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant did not attend the hearing and there was no opportunity to establish with certainty the identity of his employer or to hear the substance of his complaints or to enquire into the dispute under the Industrial Relations Act.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the disputes.

I have decided that, as no evidence was presented to substantiate the complainant’s complaints under the Workplace Relations Act, his complaints fail.

As no evidence was presented to substantiate his disputes under the Industrial Relations Act, I make no recommendation under this Act.

Dated: 20^th November 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Key Words:

Non-appearance of the complainant