ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010387
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A worker | A property services company |
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-00013768-001 | 05/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00013768-002 | 05/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00013768-003 | 05/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00013768-004 | 05/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00013768-005 | 05/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 01/04/2015, in a property maintenance position. His gross pay is stated at €21,000 per annum that equates to €403.85 per week. The Respondents in this case deny the fact of dismissal maintaining that the Complainant resigned from his position on 18/04/2018. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent, with legal representation, attended the hearing and were fully prepared for the hearing. Due to the fact that the Complainant was not in attendance there was no requirement to present their defence. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the scheduled hearing, his legal representative did attend and informed the hearing that he had been experiencing a degree of difficulty in contacting the Complainant who had returned home to Croatia to attend to some family problems. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission on 05/09/2017. On 16th August 2018 the legal representative of the Complainant wrote to the Workplace Relations Commission requesting a hearing date. A letter informing the parties of the hearing date was issued on 22nd August 2018, the hearing was scheduled for 13th September 2018, just over three weeks from the date of the notification letter. On 12/09/2018 a request was made by the Complainant’s legal representative requesting an adjournment, reason provided was that they were experiencing difficulty in contacting the Complainant. This request for an adjournment was not successful. I have considered the facts as presented and now feel that I have no alternative but to fail the complaint for lack of prosecution. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
The complaint fails for lack of prosecution. |
Dated: 26/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
|