ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012184
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Retail Employee | A Retail Business |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint 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-00015854-001 | 16/11/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00015854-002 | 16/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and 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 had been dismissed on July 13th 2017 arising from allegations of non-payment for food consumed in the company’s restaurant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant’s solicitor raised a strong objection to the fact that the respondent had not submitted its response to the complaint in accordance with WRC Guidelines. It had been emailed to him after close of business on the evening before the hearing. He indicated that he does not accept service of case documents by email and this has been made clear. The complainant’s solicitor advised that he would not participate in the hearing and he withdrew. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent apologised for the late submission and stated that this was a result of delays in interviewing witnesses. No disrespect was intended to the complainant or her legal representative. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Regrettably, it seems that the requirement to submit responses in a timely manner in cases where this is required is ‘more honoured in the breach than in the observance’. Even in cases where it is not required by the WRC to submit responses, the preference for ‘ambushing’ the other party remains strong. In general, parties coming in search of justice should apply the same principles to others that they would expect for themselves, to paraphrase the equitable maxim. In general, however, and while not wishing to discourage compliance with the above, where they fail to do so it will rarely prevent the hearing continuing. Indeed, it may even encourage compliance by removing any perceived tactical advantage by not complying. An adjudicator will normally invite parties to continue with the hearing to the point where a material prejudice might limit the adequate presentation of their case (or a response to it) and an adjournment is becomes necessary. But, in the majority of cases (in this adjudicator’s experience), and with the cooperation of the parties, the hearing can be brought to an acceptable conclusion with parties satisfied that their case has been fully heard. At any point where they are not, this is a matter that can be reviewed on its merits. In this case, while it was received unacceptably late, the respondent’s submission was relatively digestible and, as adjudicator, I formed a sufficient grasp of the key issues in under half an hour to enable the case to proceed. The complainant’s solicitor, who is an experienced practitioner in this forum, was offered a number of options; for example to proceed to the point where any difficulty or prejudice arose, a one hour or longer adjournment but these were rejected or not considered, and the complainant and the representative walked out of the hearing despite a request from the adjudicator to remain and attempt to resolve the matter. I consider this action to have been entirely unnecessary. The hearing could have proceeded but as it did not, and as the cause of this was the withdrawal of the complainant and her solicitor, the complaint must fail for want of prosecution. |
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.
For the reasons set out above Complaints CA-00015854-001 and 003 both fall for want of prosecution and they are dismissed. |
Dated: 31/07/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Withdrawal of complainant from hearing, Case falls for want of prosecution. |