ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013764
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Supervisor | A Restaurant |
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-00018049-001 | 20/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00018049-002 | 20/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00018049-003 | 20/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint 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 worked as a supervisor at the restaurant. She submitted three pay claims namely that her hourly rate had been reduced, she did not receive her public holidays and annual leave and that her P45 had an incorrect cessation date on it. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case 00018049-001:
The complainant contacted the WRC on 21st June to confirm that the case was going ahead as she had received communication that the respondent would not be attending. She was advised by the WRC that the hearing would be proceeding.
The complainant did not attend.
On her claim form the complainant submitted that her hourly rate had been reduced from €11 to €9.65.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case 00018049-001:
The respondent did not attend.
On 20th June 2018, the respondent advised the WRC that he would be away and could not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions 00018049-001:
The complainant and respondent failed to attend the hearing, I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the complainant and respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing and find their non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unexplained in the circumstances, and my decision is, therefore:
The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution |
Summary of Complainant’s Case 00018049-002:
The complainant did not attend.
The complainant contacted the WRC on 21st June to confirm that the case was going ahead as she had received communication that the respondent would not be attending. She was advised by the WRC that the hearing would be proceeding.
On her claim form, she had submitted that she had not received annual leave or public holidays following her maternity leave.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case 00018049-002:
The respondent did not attend.
On 20th June 2018, the respondent advised the WRC that he would be away and could not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions 00018049-002:
The complainant and respondent failed to attend the hearing, I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the complainant and respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing and find their non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unexplained in the circumstances, and my decision is, therefore: The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case 00018049-003:
The complainant did not attend.
The complainant contacted the WRC on 21st June to confirm that the case was going ahead as she had received communication that the respondent would not be attending. She was advised by the WRC that the hearing would be proceeding.
On her claim form, she had submitted that the cessation date on her P45 is incorrect and that cessation date was 18th January 2018 and not 23rd April 2017.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case 00018049-003:
The respondent did not attend.
On 20th June 2018, the respondent advised the WRC that he would be away and could not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions 00018049-003:
The complainant and respondent failed to attend the hearing, I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the complainant and respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing and find their non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unexplained in the circumstances, and my decision is, therefore: The claim is dismissed 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.
CA-00018049-001 The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution. CA-00018049-002 The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution.
CA-00018049-003 The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution. |
Dated: 6th November 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Payment of wages, dismissed for want of prosecution |