ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010362
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Sales Assistant | Retailer |
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-00013506-001 | 30/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/05/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly
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 is in relation to a claim by the complainant of an age-related dismissal. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant alleged that she was dismissed because of her age. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent denied that the complainant had been dismissed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There was no attendance by the complainant at the hearing. A check of the relevant WRC mailbox does not indicate that any email was received from the complainant in respect of seeking a postponement. |
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.
I am satisfied that the complainant was on notice of the hearing, that no postponement had been granted and that therefore there was no reasonable explanation for the complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing. I therefore find that the complaint fails for want of prosecution. |
Dated: 3rd September 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly
Key Words:
|