Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Pizza Chef

Mr A T/A Restaurant

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00019989-001

25/06/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00019989-002

25/06/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00019989-003

25/06/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00019989-004

25/06/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00019989-005

25/06/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00019989-007

25/06/2018

The Complainant referred his claims to the Workplace Relations Commission on 25th June 2018.

This complaint was heard in conjunction with ADJ- 00015424 and ADJ- 000115420. Substantially, the same matters are complained of in all sets of proceedings. However, the Respondent in ADJ-00015420 is named as Mr B T/A Restaurant and in ADJ-00015424 as Restaurant Limited.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing. Having been satisfied of this, I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. The Respondent did not engage with the WRC at any stage prior to the hearing, he did not apply for a postponement and did not indicate any difficulties attending the hearing.

The Complainant submitted that at the time of the referral of his claims to the WRC he named three respondents, Mr A T/A Restaurant, Mr B T/A Restaurant and Restaurant Limited. At the hearing the Complainant submitted that Restaurant Limited was not in existence at the material time and was registered as a company as of 10th April 2018. The Complainant submitted that the correct Respondent is Mr A & Mr B T/A Restaurant.

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant was employed by Mr A & Mr B T/A Restaurant. I am satisfied that both, Mr A and Mr B were notified of the details of the Complainant’s claim, copy of which was sent to both on 10th July 2018. I am also satisfied that both were notified of the date, time and location of the hearing by letters issued on 24th July 2018.

I am satisfied that both Mr A and Mr B were on notice of the Complainant’s claims. They were aware from the commencement of the case that both were named as respondents. I am satisfied given all of the circumstances of the present case that they would be neither inconvenienced nor they would suffer prejudice by the modification of the WRC form and that the said modification does not alter the nature of the claim before the hearing. Accordingly, I find that the Complainant’s claims are a matter to be addressed jointly to Mr A and Mr B T/A Restaurant.

I will consider the Complainant’s claims in my decision ADJ-00015420.

In the view of my findings above I dismiss the complaints under ADJ-00015417.

Correct respondent