ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009259
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Warehouse Operative | A Recruitment Agency |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00012167-001 | 28/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,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 complaint was first heard on April 20th, 2018 and the respondent was not in attendance. It emerged that the notice of the hearing had not been sent to the respondent’s correct address. Accordingly, it was re-scheduled for July 31st. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complainant must attend a hearing in person to present their case. It will not, for example, be sufficient to simply send a representative. This is not some bureaucratic rule. The absence of the complainant, a key witness in the complaint, will deny the Adjudicator and the respondent the opportunity to clarify or test any aspect of the complaint which may require it. It is a vital part of the fair procedure requirements of the process. The WRC has a procedure for seeking adjournments or postponements. Given the obvious difficulty of scheduling, and then re-scheduling the large volume of complaints received each year these are only granted in exceptional circumstances and on production of supporting materials. Where a postponement has not been granted in advance any party which does not attend at the hearing is taking the risk that, in all probability, the complaint will be dismissed for want of prosecution, failing something approaching force majeure. In this case, despite appearing at the first hearing the complainant’s representative submitted a request to withdraw the case ‘with liberty to re-enter’ in the event that a settlement agreed between the parties was not honoured. The request was emailed at 16.54 on the evening before the hearing which was scheduled for 10.30 the following morning. This is impossibly short notice. In any event the WRC does not operate any such procedure and a party must attend for the hearing to avoid the complaint being dismissed. In this case, that will be the outcome of its failure to do so and its unwarranted assumption that such a postponement would be granted. |
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.
For the reasons set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-00012167 and it is dismissed. |
Dated: 05/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Failure to attend hearing. |