ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013822
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Care Worker | Services Provider |
Representatives | No attendance | Mairead Crosby IBEC |
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-00018143-001 | 26/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00018143-002 | 26/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of theEmployment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, 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 contends that she was constructively dismissed and that the Respondent discriminated against her on grounds of age and disability. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Neither the Complainant nor her representative attended the hearing. Her representative communicated with the WRC on 8th August 2018 seeking for the case to be decided by written submissions. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s representative stated the following: The factual evidence in this case is in dispute. It is not appropriate to consider the case on the submission made by the Complainant’s solicitor, which submission is incomplete with many gaps rendering it illegible in some parts. The complaint of constructive dismissal, in any event is out of time. The Respondent seeks for the Adjudicator to dismiss these complaints as vexatious. The Company reps travelled from Limerick to attend this case. The case should fail for lack of prosecution and the Company should be awarded costs. |
Decision:
These complaints were received some 7 months after the Complainant resigned from her employment. The Complainant failed to attend the hearing citing health reasons. No medical certification was received. By letter dated 8th August 2018, one day prior to the hearing the Complainant’s solicitor informed the WRC of this and the fact that the Complainant wished to have her case decided based on the written submission. The written submission received by the WRC on 5th August 2018 is incomplete. Section 47 (1) provides that a complaint presented may be dealt with by written submission only and that where the Director General decides this be the case, may “inform the parties to the complaint or dispute, by notification in writing of his or her intention to deal with the complaint or dispute in this manner”.
I have decided that these complaints will not be decided based on written submission. The complaints fail for lack of prosecution.