ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004886

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Cleaner	Cleaning and Security Provider

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00006971-001	13/09/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/06/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 (1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 (as substituted) and where a claim for redress under the Unfair Dismissals legislation is being made, the claim is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers any such claim to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said claim heard in the manner prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and in particular the said Adjudication Officer is obliged to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.

In particular, and in circumstances where the Complainant herein has referred a complaint of having been unfairly dismissed form her place of employment by reason of a pregnancy and as detailed in a Workplace Relations Complaint Form (dated the 30^th of September 2016). I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to hear the within matter

Background:

The Claim is one seeking redress for Unfair Dismissal

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent asked that this matter be Struck Out

Findings and Conclusions:

In circumstances where the Complainant did not attend to prosecute her claim and where no further communication from her had been received and being satisfied that a correct Notice was sent to the address she had provided, I was obliged to give consideration to the Respondent’s request.

Decision:

This claim is Struck Out for want of prosecution by or on behalf of the Complainant.

Dated: 9.11.2017

Key Words: