ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008779

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Translator	Government Offices

Representatives

DID NOT ATTEND

Dispute:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 9 of the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004	CA-00011331-001	15/05/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/08/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker is employed as a Translator. He has claimed that he was victimised for being or not being a member, or engaging or not engaging in activities on behalf of a Trade Union or excepted body.

The Worker withdrew his other claim ADJ 6598. However, this case was not withdrawn.

Neither party attended the hearing.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The Worker did not attend and was not represented. No claim was presented for adjudication.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer did not attend and was not represented.

Findings and Conclusions:

I note correspondence on file advising the parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing.

I note that neither party attended the hearing.

I find that as no claim was prosecuted this compliant fails for want of prosecution.

Recommendation:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

For the above stated reasons, I recommend that this complaint should fail.

Dated: 3rd October 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Key Words:

Non-attendance, failure to prosecute claim