ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00022119

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Security Operative	A Security Company

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00029135-001	18/06/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00029135-002	18/06/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/10/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant did not attend the hearing on October 29^th, 2019.

Some days later on November 12^th correspondence (dated November 7^th) was received by the WRC from the complainant’s solicitor advising that there had been a ‘mix up regarding the hearing date’ and as a result the complainant had been unable to attend.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent was in attendance for the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

As outlined above the complainant’s solicitor wrote to the WRC explaining the complainant’s failure to attend which it attributed to a ‘mix up’.

The letter contained a request that the hearing be re-scheduled.

As it happens, this was a re-scheduled hearing although the first postponement was attributable to difficulties on the part of the respondent in relation to flight arrangements, and no fault of the complainant.

On this occasion the respondent’s two representatives had flown from Scotland to attend the hearing.

The Pre-Registration Unit of the WRC replied to the complainant’s representative on November 13^th stating that;

‘a ‘mix up’ is not a sufficient explanation for failure to attend a hearing and seek re-scheduling. In order to consider a case for rescheduling, we will need further details with supporting documentation.’

Nothing further was heard from the complainant.

There is an obligation on parties to a complaint, and in particular a complainant to attend and make their case.

Occasionally, a party will have a genuine, or unforeseeable difficulty in attending and where this happens that will be given due consideration and may be accommodated where adequate proof of whatever difficulty which has arisen is provided.

However, that is not the case here. Both parties were sent notice of the hearing well in advance, on September 27^th.

I am satisfied that the complainant was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaints are not well-founded and I decide accordingly.

Decision/Recommendation:

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.

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

For the reason set out above I find that complaint CA-00029135-001 is not well founded and complaint CA-00029135-002 is not upheld.

Dated: 17/12/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Key Words:

Non-attendance of complainant.