ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021243
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Accommodation Manager | School |
Representatives |
| Paul Rochford MASON HAYES & CURRAN |
Complaints:
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-00028055-001 | 30/04/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00028055-002 | 30/04/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as an Accommodation Manager from 10th August 2010 to 9th April 2019. She was paid €35,000 per annum. She has claimed that she is owed wages and that she was unfairly dismissed. She has sought reinstatement. |
1) Unfair Dismissals Act CA 28005-001
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No complaint was prosecuted so the Respondent did not have to respond. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note the correspondence on file advising both parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing. I note that the Complainant did not attend and was not represented. I find that no claim was prosecuted on the day. |
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 have decided that no claim was prosecuted so it fails for want of prosecution.
I have decided that the claim was not well founded so it fails.
2) Payment of Wages Act CA 28005-002
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No complaint was prosecuted so the Respondent did not have to respond. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note the correspondence on file advising both parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing. I note that the Complainant did not attend and was not represented. I find that no claim was prosecuted on the day. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that no claim was prosecuted so it fails for want of prosecution.
I have decided that the claim was not well founded so it fails.
Dated: 3rd December 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
No complaint prosecuted |