ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013629
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Medical Device Manufacturer |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00017835-001 | 08/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/10/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from January 2014 until September 2017, when his employment was terminated on the grounds of dismissal. The Complainant’s claim is that this dismissal was unfair. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A Hearing was scheduled for 23 August 2018 to hear the Complainant’s complaint. His Trade Union representative attended on that date and requested an adjournment on the basis that the Complainant was not able to attend due to personal/family reasons. The Respondent, who had a full team in attendance, objected to an adjournment being granted. However, based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant’s Trade Union representative, an adjournment was granted and the Hearing was re-fixed for 10 October 2018. On the morning of 10 October 2018, I received a phone call from the Complainant’s Trade Union representative advising that they were no longer on record for this case. A full team from the Respondent attended in time for the Hearing, which was scheduled to commence at 11:00 am. The Complainant did not attend. Therefore, having made the appropriate checks to ensure no contact had been received from or on behalf of the Complainant and having postponed the start of the Hearing for a reasonable period of time, I closed the Hearing. Consequently, based on the Complainant’s failure to attend either of the two Hearings scheduled to hear his complaint, I dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. |
Decision:
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.
Complaint dismissed for lack of prosecution. |
Dated: 17/10/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal Lack of Prosecution |