ADJ-00016812

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Food and Beverage Assistant

A Bar and Restaurant

Representatives

No Appearance on either day of hearing.

Chris Weldon on 19 December 2018.

No Appearance at the resumed hearing on 7 February 2019

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00021856-001

14/09/2018

This case involves a claim for unfair dismissal with short of 12 months service .The Business has gone through a take over and is managed by new Directors .

The Claimant submitted a complaint on 14 September 2018. He submitted that he had worked as a Food and Beverage Assistant for a period of 4.5 months, March to August 2018. He worked 10 hours a week for a gross weekly pay of €100.00.

The claimant submitted that he had been unfairly dismissed without having at least 12 months service under the Unfair Dismissal Legislation.

The Claimant outlined that he presumed that his tenure was unaffected by the planned closure of the Restaurant business on 6 August 2018. He expected to be laid off to tide him over a projected 8-week closure. He received a letter to that effect dated 8 August 2018 on 22 August 2018.This was followed by the claimants P45.

The claimant went on to outline that he was one of 21 potential claimants. He expressed a dissatisfaction that he had not received a contract of employment or pay slips during his employment.

The Claimant was represented by his Solicitor and there was no appearance on the first day of hearing. Enquiries revealed that the Solicitor had not received a notification of hearing and requested a resumed hearing. I agreed to facilitate this and wrote to both parties on 19 December outlining my plan to relist the hearing in the new year.

The Complainants Solicitor informed the WRC that he off record one day prior to the resumed hearing on February 7, 2019.

There was no appearance by the claimant at the resumed hearing.

On the morning of 19 December, the Employer attended the hearing and introduced himself as one of the new Directors. He explained that a series of layoffs had occurred, and the business was closed for several weeks. He submitted that the name of the company had been amended and the business was now trading under an amended title which he agreed to amend at the hearing.

He had been advised to attend the hearing by his Human Resource Advisors and was happy to offer the claimant work if he wished to return.

The Employer did not attend the resumed hearing.

I have endeavoured to secure the attendance of all parties in this case. To date, I have just met the Employer on the first day. It may be the case that the claimant has accepted his offer of work and the case is moot. I was also keen to explore whether this claim was to amount to a claim on behalf of a body of workers? I was unable to illicit this information.

My role under the Industrial Relations Act is to investigate the dispute and if possibly make a recommendation in the case.

I am satisfied that both parties were on notice of the resumed hearing as reflected by the Complainants Solicitors email on 6 February which confirmed that he had not received instructions from his client. I permitted a reasonable waiting period on the day of hearing . I have also allowed the 7 day waiting period advised by WRC to pass and no contact has been recorded from the Respondent .

I have found the complaint to be without merit as I have not heard from the claimant on his statement of claim or what if any recourse he was seeking.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I have found the claim to be without merit.

Transition in Ownership of Bar and Restaurant