ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009617
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A car accessories business |
Representatives | solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00012611-001 | 18/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00012611-003 | 18/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00012611-004 | 18/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00012611-005 | 18/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/12/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Stephen Bonnlander
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 filed his complaints on 18 July 2017. On 23 March 2018, the Director General delegated the complaints to me for hearing and decision. I held a hearing with the parties on 5 April 2018. On this occasion, counsel for the respondent submitted that the within respondent was wrongly named. The complainant’s representative accepted that the owner of the respondent company owned several companies. He applied for the respondent’s other company to be added to the proceedings. I adjourned the hearing and wrote to the complainant’s representative on 20 June 2018 to say that the Commission has no power to do so, and that he would have to file fresh complaints under the correct respondent name. At the reconvened hearing on 11 December 2018, the respondent did not appear. The complainant’s representative stated that by June 2018, the complaints were outside of statutory time limits. However, given that no application pursuant to Section 39(4) of the Organisation of Working Time Act has been received from the complainant or his representative, I cannot consider this fact. The complainant’s representative confirmed that no fresh complaints had been filed. Accordingly, I must find that I have no jurisdiction to hear the within complaints. |
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.
As set out in detail above, I find that I lack jurisdiction to investigate the within complaints because the within respondent has been wrongly named. |
Dated: 13th December 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Stephen Bonnlander
Key Words:
Respondent wrongly named – no application from complainant pursuant to S. 39(4) of Organisation of Working Time Act – no jurisdiction. |