ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015248
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-00019729-001 | 12/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00019729-002 | 12/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00019729-003 | 12/06/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 was employed as a Chef from 29th March 2017 to 21st May 2018. He was paid €346.71 net per week. He has claimed that there was an illegal deduction from his wages, he is owed wages and he did not get minimum notice. |
1)Payment of Wages Act 1991 CA 19729/0011&2
2)Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 CA 19729-003
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent expressed concern that he had requested an adjournment due to ill health, but it was declined. He had attended the hearing in good faith, but the Complainant did not attend. He had no contact with the Complainant since he left. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The hearing was convened at 9.30am. The Complainant was not in attendance. The Adjudication Officer waited for 20 minutes and checked if any communication had been received to explain the absence of the Complainant. There was an Interpreter in attendance requested by the Complainant. The meeting was closed at 9.55am. The Complainant and a friend arrived just after 10.00am and the Adjudicator met with them and asked why they were not in attendance at 9.30. He did not give any reason other than they went down towards the AVIVA stadium in error. They were asked why they did not telephone the WRC as they had the letter confirming the venue, date and time of the hearing and the telephone number. They gave no reason as to why they did not arrive in time or contact the WRC. I find that the Complainant did not give any cogent reason why they arrived late other than going to the wrong end of Lansdowne Road which is a matter of minutes away only. I have decided not to grant the Complainant an alternative date and so a decision is issued.
|
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.
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by Ranjeev Kumar on 12th June 2018 alleging that his former employer contravened the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 in relation to him. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 26th November 2018. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the time of the arranged hearing. I am satisfied that the Complainant was advised in writing of the venue, date and time of the hearing to investigate the complaint.
In the circumstances and in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me I must conclude that the within complaint is not well founded and I decide accordingly.
Dated: 29/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Non-attendance at hearing |