ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION and RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A trainee Solicitor | A Legal Practice |
Representatives | No Appearance by or on behalf of the complainant | Mr Michael O Dowd, Principal. |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. | CA-00022703-001 | |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Payment of Wages Act,1991 | CA-00022703-002 | |
CA-00022703-003 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, following the referral of the complaints and dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints and dispute.
Background:
On the 18 October 2018, the Complainant, a Trainee Solicitor submitted two complaints under the Payment of Wages Act and one Dispute under the Industrial Relations Act to the WRC. Clarification was sought on his stated intention in relation to the claims brought under Payment of Wages Act. On 27 October 2018, the complainant clarified that he sought adjudication over a WRC Inspection. The three claims were notified to the Respondent on 12 November 2018. On 12 June 2019, both parties were invited to hearing on 25 July 2019. The Respondent was the sole attendee on that day. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant raised several complaints regarding a period of employment 20 August 2018 to 31 August 2018. The Complainant did not attend the hearing. He did not notify the service of his decision in this regard. He did not seek an adjournment. The notification of hearing was sent to the same address populated on the original complaint form. CA -00022703 -001 The Complainant submitted that he had been underpaid by €400 gross CA -00022703-002 The Complainant did not particularise this claim. CA -00022703-003 The Complainant submitted that he had been unfairly dismissed from his role of Trainee solicitor during an 11-day period of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent is a Legal Practice and attended hearing on July 25, 2019 He confirmed that the complainant had worked at the practice for one week for which he had been paid. The employment had not been successful. CA -00022703-001 The Respondent confirmed that he had paid the complainant. CA -00022703-002 The Respondent confirmed that he had paid the complainant. CA -00022703-003 The Respondent had nothing further to add. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that both parties have been properly notified of the claim. I am clear that the complainant did not give any reason for his non-appearance or seek an adjournment. I allowed 20 minutes at the commencement of hearing to facilitate a delayed arrival for any reason. I have found the complainants approach to the hearing to be unreasonable. CA-00022703-001 Payment of Wages Claim I did not have the benefit of evidence in this case. The Respondent has rejected the claim. In the absence of the complainant, which I find unreasonable, I find the claim to be not well founded. CA -00022703-002 Payment of Wages Claim I did not have the benefit of any clarification of the claim from the complainant. The Respondent rejected the claim. I found that the claim was not particularised. I find the claim to be not well founded. CA -00022703-003 Industrial Relations Claim The Claimant did not attend the hearing. I have been unable to investigate his Dispute. His claim for unfair dismissal requires an input from both parties. I needed to hear from the claimant to introduce and explain his case. In his unexplained absence, I cannot make a recommendation in the case. The claim is unsuccessful.
|
Decision and Recommendation:Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with Section 6 of that Act. CA-00022703-001 Payment of Wages Claim I have found the claim to be not well founded. CA-00022703-002 Payment of Wages Claim I have found the claim to be not well founded. Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. CA -00022703-003 Industrial Relations Claim I have been unable to investigate this Dispute. The absence of the claimant at hearing prevented this investigation . The claim is unsuccessful. |
Dated: 6th August 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
Alleged deduction in wages, Unfair Dismissal claim. |