ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007488
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Security Officer | Security Provider |
Complaint(s):
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-00010044-001 | 05/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/06/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Location of Hearing: Room G.04 Lansdowne House
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to be prepared to hear this matter.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred a complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, in circumstances where the complaint is deemed to be well founded, compensation in the amount so specified may be awarded.
In a preliminary way I am satisfied a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations complaint Form dated the 5th of March, 2017 was submitted within the time allowed.
Background:
The Complainant has brought a claim under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The claim relates to the alleged non-payment of sick pay. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend at the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was at the hearing (in the person of it’s Commercial Director) together with appropriate representation. The Respondent asked that this matter be Struck Out for the want of Prosecution. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified at the address given, of today’s hearing date. I am further satisfied that the Complainant has not applied to or otherwise communicated with the WRC for a postponement or to explain his delay or non-attendance. In circumstances where an appropriate length of time passed for the late arrival of the Complainant, I formed the view that the Complainant would not be prosecuting his claim.
|
Decision:
The Complaint herein has been Struck Out for the want of Prosecution.
Dated: 28/8/17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath