ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007902

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Porter	A Hotel

Representatives

VP Sheilds Solicitors

Marcus Dowling BL instructed by Conroy Beale & Company Solicitors

Complaints:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00010537-001	30/03/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00010537-002	30/03/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00010537-003	30/03/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00010537-004	30/03/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00010537-005	30/03/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/08/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 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 submitted claims regarding pay, holidays, constructive dismissal and discrimination.

The complainant’s representative attended but the complainant did not attend.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant did not attend. Details on the claim forms stated that the complainant had not been paid the correct amount, that he resigned his position because his position was untenable and that he had been discriminated against throughout his employment.

The complainant’s solicitor advised that his client was in Hungary and that the representative had been contacted by the complainant the day before stating that the complainant was unwell with a back issue and would not be in attendance. A request for an adjournment was made. A letter in Hungarian from the complainant’s doctor was provided that had been received by the Solicitor earlier that morning and a copy of same was provided.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent objected to the adjournment and advised that the claims were also out of time. The respondent advised that if the claim proceeded that they would looks for costs associated with the claim.

Following the hearing, the respondent’s representative advised on 28^th August 2017 that they had translated the letter from the Hungarian doctor (a copy of which was provided) and which detailed that the complainant had suffered from “palpitations’ and not a back issue as had been advised on the day of the hearing. They requested that the claim be dismissed. The complainant’s representative responded on 31^st August 2017 requesting time to investigate and advised on 6^th September that there may be another medical cert forthcoming. On 11^th September 2017 the complainant’s representative confirmed that they wished to come off record.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant failed to attend the hearing and his representative requested an adjournment. A letter in Hungarian was provided by his representative purporting to be from a doctor but no translation of same was available. It was advised that the reason for his non attendance at the hearing was owing to a back problem. A translation of the medical letter submitted after the hearing by the respondent on 28^th August 2017 detailed that the illness was in fact ‘palpitations’ and not a back issue and the respondent requested a dismissal of the complaint.

More correspondence followed and on 11^th September2 2017 the complainant’s representative advised that they wished to come off record.

Having considered all the evidence the request for an adjournment is denied and and my decision is, therefore:

CA-00010537-001