ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009466
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Receptionist/Cleaner/Security | Adult Bar/Club |
Complaints:
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-00012381-001 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00012381-002 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00012381-003 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012381-004 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012381-005 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012381-006 | 07/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 2014 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 complains.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Security/Receptionist/Cleaner from 16th March 2012 to 21st May 2017. He was paid €354.60 per week for 30 hours. He has claimed that he got no contract of employment, was unfairly dismissed and did not get minimum notice. |
Complainant’s Non-Attendance:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented. The Complainant’s representative contacted the Commission on 3rd April 2018 to explain that he had mixed up the dates with another hearing later in the month. He stated that he advised the Complainant and witness not to attend at the hearing this morning and neither are available. He sought an adjournment as he did not want to deny his client’s right to be heard because of his error. |
Respondent’s Position:
The Respondent objected to the adjournment. They stated that the Complainant’s representative did not indicate that they had not been notified. They had received the Respondent’s submission on March 28th. There were no special extenuating circumstances to explain their non-attendance. This case was previously adjourned at the Complainant’s request. The Respondent was in attendance with Counsel and four witnesses. Findings and Conclusions |
Adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances and for substantial reasons.
This was pointed out in writing by the WRC when advising parties of the date, time and venue of the hearing.
I also note that the Complainant’s representative received the Respondent’s submission on 28th March, some four days before the hearing.
I find no reason to grant the adjournment.
Therefore, I find that the Complainant did not prosecute his case.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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 not to grant the adjournment
As this complaint was not prosecuted I have decided that this complaint fails for want of prosecution.
|
Dated: 23rd August 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
|
Complainant did not attend
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009466
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Peter Piescik | Arelia Leisure Limited T/A The Boilerhouse |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Receptionist/Cleaner/Security | Adult Bar/Club |
Representatives | DID NOT ATTEND | Emma Cassidy BL, Sarah O’Mahoney Sol of Tom Casey Solicitors, Cyril O’Brien, Niall McDermott, Gareth Macken, Kanlis Krumins |
Complaints:
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-00012381-001 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00012381-002 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00012381-003 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012381-004 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012381-005 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012381-006 | 07/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 2014 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 complains.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Security/Receptionist/Cleaner from 16th March 2012 to 21st May 2017. He was paid €354.60 per week for 30 hours. He has claimed that he got no contract of employment, was unfairly dismissed and did not get minimum notice. |
Complainant’s Non-Attendance:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented. The Complainant’s representative contacted the Commission on 3rd April 2018 to explain that he had mixed up the dates with another hearing later in the month. He stated that he advised the Complainant and witness not to attend at the hearing this morning and neither are available. He sought an adjournment as he did not want to deny his client’s right to be heard because of his error. |
Respondent’s Position:
The Respondent objected to the adjournment. They stated that the Complainant’s representative did not indicate that they had not been notified. They had received the Respondent’s submission on March 28th. There were no special extenuating circumstances to explain their non-attendance. This case was previously adjourned at the Complainant’s request. The Respondent was in attendance with Counsel and four witnesses. Findings and Conclusions |
Adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances and for substantial reasons.
This was pointed out in writing by the WRC when advising parties of the date, time and venue of the hearing.
I also note that the Complainant’s representative received the Respondent’s submission on 28th March, some four days before the hearing.
I find no reason to grant the adjournment.
Therefore, I find that the Complainant did not prosecute his case.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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 not to grant the adjournment
As this complaint was not prosecuted I have decided that this complaint fails for want of prosecution.
|
Dated: 23rd August 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
|
Complainant did not attend
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009466
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Receptionist/Cleaner/Security | Adult Bar/Club |
Complaints:
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-00012381-001 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00012381-002 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00012381-003 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012381-004 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012381-005 | 07/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012381-006 | 07/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 2014 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 complains.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Security/Receptionist/Cleaner from 16th March 2012 to 21st May 2017. He was paid €354.60 per week for 30 hours. He has claimed that he got no contract of employment, was unfairly dismissed and did not get minimum notice. |
Complainant’s Non-Attendance:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented. The Complainant’s representative contacted the Commission on 3rd April 2018 to explain that he had mixed up the dates with another hearing later in the month. He stated that he advised the Complainant and witness not to attend at the hearing this morning and neither are available. He sought an adjournment as he did not want to deny his client’s right to be heard because of his error. |
Respondent’s Position:
The Respondent objected to the adjournment. They stated that the Complainant’s representative did not indicate that they had not been notified. They had received the Respondent’s submission on March 28th. There were no special extenuating circumstances to explain their non-attendance. This case was previously adjourned at the Complainant’s request. The Respondent was in attendance with Counsel and four witnesses. Findings and Conclusions |
Adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances and for substantial reasons.
This was pointed out in writing by the WRC when advising parties of the date, time and venue of the hearing.
I also note that the Complainant’s representative received the Respondent’s submission on 28th March, some four days before the hearing.
I find no reason to grant the adjournment.
Therefore, I find that the Complainant did not prosecute his case.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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 not to grant the adjournment
As this complaint was not prosecuted I have decided that this complaint fails for want of prosecution.
|
Dated: 23rd August 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
|
Complainant did not attend