Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Youth Worker

A Regional Youth Service

Representatives

Brody and Company Solicitors

Mr. Ray Delahunt B.L. on the instructions of Pembroke Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00007479-001

06/10/2016

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Senior Youth Worker from 22 September, 2009 until 7 April, 2016. The Complainant claims that she was constructively dismissed from her employment and that this dismissal was unfair within the meaning of Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The Respondent disputes that dismissal occurred and contends that the Complainant voluntarily resigned her position.

The Complainant claims that during the last three years of her employment she was unfairly treated and bullied out of her position. The Complainant claims that she was unfairly treated by the company’s CEO in comparison to the treatment afforded to her colleagues as she was of the view that her job performance fell short of the standard required resulting in her being subjected to the Respondent’s disciplinary process.

The Complainant claims that she was advised that should she fail to make adequate progress her employer would have no option but to dismiss her. The Complainant claims that as a result of same and the bullying and harassment to which she was subjected that she had no option but to leave her employment as the situation had adversely affected her mental health causing her a degree of stress. The Complainant claims that she was constructively dismissed from her employment.

The Respondent disputes that dismissal occurred and contends that the Complainant voluntarily resigned her position. The Respondent denies that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

The parties were notified in writing by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 22 January, 2018 that the hearing of this complaint was scheduled to take place on 13 February, 2018. The WRC received a letter from the Complainant’s representative dated 2 February, 2018 seeking a postponement of the hearing on the basis that the Complainant was unable to attend the hearing on the date in question due to work commitments. It was indicated that the Complainant was dealing with a case in her workplace on that date which had been arranged for some time and as a result she could not re-arrange same.

The Complainant was informed by the WRC by e-mail on 2 February, 2018 that the postponement of hearing arrangements is only granted in exceptional circumstances and an application for same must be submitted in writing and accompanied by the relevant supporting documentation. The Complainant was requested to provide supporting documentation to enable the WRC to consider the request for a postponement of the hearing.

The Complainant’s representative responded to the WRC by e-mail on 5 February, 2018 and indicated that the Complainant was not in a position to provide supporting documentation from her work as she did not wish for the instant proceedings to interfere in any manner with her current role. The Complainant’s representative indicated that it was mandatory for the Complainant to attend an appointment relating to a child in Care Review on 13 February, 2018 and that it was essential she attend this meeting.

The Complainant’s representative was informed by the WRC by letter dated 7 February, 2018 that the request for a postponement was refused and that the hearing would take place as scheduled on 13 February, 2018.

The Complainant’s representative attended the hearing on 13 February, 2018 and indicated that the Complainant was unable to attend due to work commitments, as had previously been notified to the WRC. The Complainant’s representative made a further application for a postponement of the hearing on the aforementioned basis. The Complainant’s representative confirmed that the Complainant was not in a position to provide any documentation from her current employer in support of the application for a postponement given the sensitivities associated with this matter.  

The Respondent and its witnesses were in attendance at the hearing and were prepared to provide evidence in relation to the complaint. The Respondent’s representative indicated that the Respondent was opposing the application for a postponement of the hearing and it was submitted that the complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution by the Complainant.

In considering this matter, I note that it is standard practice of the WRC that the postponement of hearing arrangements is only granted in exceptional circumstances and must be accompanied by the relevant supporting documentation. I am satisfied that the Complainant’s representative was notified in writing on 7 February, 2017 that the initial postponement request was refused and that the hearing would proceed as scheduled on 13 February, 2018. I am also satisfied that the Complainant’s representative did not adduce any new or additional information or documentation on the date of the scheduled hearing in further support of the application for a postponement.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant has failed to establish that there were exceptional circumstances which would justify the granting of a postponement of the hearing. Accordingly, I find that Complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing to be unreasonable.

As the Complainant is alleging constructive dismissal, the fact of dismissal is in dispute and the onus of proof rests with the Complainant to establish facts to prove that the actions of the Respondent were such as to justify her terminating her employment. I find that the Complainant did not attend the hearing to prosecute her case and accordingly, the complaint cannot succeed for want of prosecution.

I find that the Complainant did not attend the hearing to prosecute her case and accordingly, the complaint cannot succeed for want of prosecution.

Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 – Application for Postponement of Hearing - Failure to attend hearing – Complaint dismissed for want of prosecution