ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007409
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | General Operative | Transport & Warehouse Company |
Complaints:
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-00009947-001 | 28/02/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00009947-002 | 28/02/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
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 complaints to me by the Director General, 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.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a General Operative from 5th March 2011 to 2nd November 2016. He was paid €420.00 per week. He has claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and did not receive minimum notice. |
1) Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, CA 9947-001
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s Representative advised that the Complainant was unavailable to attend. He was working in another country. He had not advised the union of his movements and change of address and mobile number. He failed to respond to their communications and to properly instruct them. He sought an adjournment and was hopeful that if granted the Complainant would attend at a reconvened hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent objected to an adjournment. They had supplied a written submission some weeks earlier. Three representatives travelled from Limerick for the hearing. It would be wholly inappropriate to adjourn the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I refer to the request for an adjournment and the Respondent’s position. I have considered that the Complainant failed to take seriously this complaint that he had submitted to the WRC. I found no basis to grant the adjournment. I find that it is necessary for the Complainant to be present to prosecute his case and give direct evidence where required. |
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 have decided that this complaint has failed for want of prosecution.
|
2) Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973, CA 9947-002
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s Representative advised that the Complainant was unavailable to attend. He was working in another country. He had not advised the union of his movements and change of address and mobile number. He failed to respond to their communications and to properly instruct them. He sought an adjournment and was hopeful that if granted the Complainant would attend at a reconvened hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent objected to an adjournment. They had supplied a written submission some weeks earlier. Three representatives travelled from Limerick for the hearing. It would be wholly inappropriate to adjourn the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I refer to the request for an adjournment and the Respondent’s position. I have considered that the Complainant failed to take seriously this complaint that he had submitted to the WRC. I found no basis to grant the adjournment. I find that it is necessary for the Complainant to be present to prosecute his case and give direct evidence where required. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that this complaint fails for want of prosecution.
|
Dated: 11/10/17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal & Minimum Notice |