ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007022

Complaint(s):

ActComplaint/Dispute Reference No.Date of Receipt Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00009559-001 06/02/2017   Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/10/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, 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.  

Background:

The complainant was dismissed on January 30th 2017, and he submitted a complaint of unfair dismissal to the WRC on February 6th. He alleged that the disciplinary process that the company followed in response to problems with his performance was unfair. The complainant is a French national and he also claimed that in dismissing him, the company was trying to reduce the number of French agents working in the Dublin facility. On February 14th, the complainant submitted the letters he received from the company leading up to the final meeting regarding his performance and the letter of January 30th confirming the termination of his employment.   He appended comments to the letters and to many of the supporting documents. On March 9th 2017, the HR Manager for the respondent company sent a detailed submission to the WRC, setting out the chronology of events leading to the decision to dismiss the complainant. In support of the respondent’s position, the HR Manager cited the Employment Appeals Tribunal case of the respondent company and another employee, Jean-Guy Twagirayezu (UD 1268/2014), who was dismissed in similar circumstances to the complainant in this case. The Tribunal found that the dismissal in this case was not unfair. A hearing of this complainant’s case was scheduled for September 11th 2017. The HR Manager requested a postponement of the hearing on this date and the request was granted. The hearing was re-scheduled for September 27th.   The respondent requested another postponement due to the unavailability of a key witness and this request was also granted. A new date was issued to both parties for October 27th. The HR Manager and two other managers attended on behalf of the respondent, with their representative from Arthur Cox Solicitors. The complainant did not attend.

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.   I find that the complainant’s failure to attend the hearing scheduled for October 27th 2017 was unreasonable in the circumstances and any obligation under section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act has ceased. As no evidence was given at the hearing in support of the allegation of unfair dismissal, I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant.   Dated:   13.11.17  Key Words: Failure to attend