ADJ-00019311

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019311

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Boner	A Meat Company

Complaint:

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts	CA-00025198-001	22/01/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/06/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Procedure:

In accordance Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background:

This claim arises from a complaint of unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Claimant is a Brazilian national and the Employer is a Meat Company.

The Claim was lodged on 22 January 2019 and refers to a period of employment from 21 November 2018 to 6 December 2018.

On May 16, 2019, the Complainant emailed the WRC. He explained that he had repatriated to Brazil in December 2018 and was planning on returning to work at a Meat Factory in Ireland in the early days of June 2019. He was apprehensive about being released from work to attend the hearing. He posed two questions of the WRC.

1.Possibility of rescheduling the hearing to another location in the event of his new employer not allowing him the day off.

2.Possibility of his friend replacing him at hearing.

He also explained that he could rely on his friend for interpretation.

The WRC furnished a response on 20 May 2019. The claimant was advised that he must attend the hearing in person. Postponements could only be granted in exceptional circumstances and for substantial reasons. He was advised to seek the day off from his employer and failing this to make a formal application for a postponement. He was also advised to seek the consent of his former employer is he wished to relocate the hearing. Finally, he was offered the opportunity to request an Interpreter for assistance at hearing.

On 10 June 2019 the Claimant confirmed his intention to attend the hearing. He confirmed that he had started his new job.

On 20 June 2019, the Employer submitted a copy of a written submission in response to the claim. This was copied to the claimant.

On 21 June 2019, the WRC confirmed that an accredited Interpreter would be available for the Hearing.

The Claimant submitted an 11 th hour email cancelling the hearing on the basis that he had been refused the day off to attend. He sought another hearing at another town closer to his current workplace.

I explained these developments to the Employer, the sole attendee at hearing and heard their response.

Summary of Claimant ’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend the hearing. I have detailed the background chronology to same .

The Claimant is a Brazilian National who submitted a complaint of unfair dismissal in the context of his period of employment of two weeks duration in December 2018.

I have no further details of the complaint from the claimant’s perspective.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer is a large Meat Company. The Employers Representative outlined that the claimant had previously worked for the company in 2008 until he repatriated to Brazil post an altercation at work in 2011.The Employer dispute the claim for unfair dismissal.

The Claimant commenced work in another part of the employer’s company on November 15, 2018. The Employer had not known about the events of the earlier altercation and subsequent abandonment of position by the claimant.

The Employer had concerns about the claimant’s employment record and utilised the probationary period to assess this, before terminating his employment on 6 December 2018. Hi repatriation was financed by the employer and the dismissal was not disputed by the claimant.

The Employer submitted that the claimant had been silent on his earlier employment with the company which in turn disadvantaged the employer.

The Employer denied that the dismissal was unfair.

I explained to the Employer four-person team, that the claimant had cancelled the hearing from his perspective and sought a resumed venue closer to his new work. I asked for the Employer to respond to this.

The Employer confirmed that they were wholly opposed to an adjournment or postponement. They had taken time to prepare to answer the case and contended that the hearing should proceed as planned. They wanted the matter dealt with. They confirmed that the Claimant had not contacted the company to seek a relocation of the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

I had prepared this case for hearing and was ready to commence my investigation under the IR Acts. My preparations had confirmed that the claimant was fully intent on participating at hearing and would be supported by an Interpreter. I had also read and reviewed the Employers written submission.

I considered the late submission of a request to adjourn the hearing submitted by the claimant . As the Employer delegation had assembled, I asked their views on the request to relist the case. This was wholly opposed by the Employer for the reasons given.

I took a recess .

For my part, I reviewed the communication between the WRC and the claimant February 2019 to day of Hearing. The Claimant was given very clear advice on the requirement to attend the hearing or seek a formal postponement. I cannot accept that his email dated after close of business on 24 June constituted a proper application for a postponement. I did not have the benefit of any evidence of refusal to grant time off by the new employer before me .

I have found that the claimant confirmed his intention to attend the hearing shortly after he commenced at the new job in June 2019. He was reassured that an interpreter had been booked to support him in his delivery of his case. I have taken account of the Employer submissions on having travelled a distance to hearing , desire to press on with the case and the absence of any contact from the claimant on seeking to relocate the hearing.

I have concluded that the claimant’s cancellation of his attendance at hearing in the face of solid advice that his attendance at his own case would be required was unreasonable in all the circumstances. I have been unable to establish the presence of substantial grounds to justify a last-minute adjournment. All parties were present at the hearing save the claimant. This was regrettable.

The claimant has been informed that his request for adjournment has been refused.

I have concluded my investigation and due to the Claimants absence from hearing, I have not found merit in this dispute.

Recommendation:

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

The Claimant did not present at hearing. He cancelled his planned participation at the very last juncture. I was unable to grant an adjournment.

ADJ-00019311

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019311

Parties:

Dated: 16/08/19

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Key Words: