ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011894
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Pest Control Technician | A Pest Control Company |
Complaint:
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-00015795-001 | 14/11/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00015795-002 | 14/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
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 by the Respondent as a Pest Control Technician from 6th January 2014 until 11th August 2017. The complainant was paid €32,543.00 per annum. The complaint relates to alleged Unfair Dismissal and the non-payment of Notice relating to the termination of his employment. The complainant submitted an identical complaint (ADJ 000-11936) based on the same facts but relating to a different entity. |
CA-00015795-001 – Unfair Dismissal’s Act, 1977
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
This complaint was not pursued at the adjudication hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submitted two Adjudication complaints relating to his employment. ADJ 000-11936 relates to identical facts but to a different entity. The decision in that complaint states that as the named respondent was not the complainant’s employer at the time of dismissal, the complaint was not well founded. At the adjudication hearing the complainant chose not to pursue this complaint (ADJ-000-11894) opting instead to have the substantive complaint heard under ADJ-000-11936. |
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.
This complaint was not pursued at the adjudication hearing and therefore cannot succeed. |
CA-00015795-002 – Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
This complaint was not pursued at the adjudication hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submitted two Adjudication complaints relating to his employment. ADJ 000-11936 relates to identical facts but to a different entity. The decision in that complaint states that as the named respondent was not the complainant’s employer at the time of dismissal, the complaint was not well founded. At the adjudication hearing the complainant chose not to pursue this complaint (ADJ-000-11894) opting instead to have the substantive complaint heard under ADJ-000-11936. |
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.
This complaint was not pursued at the Adjudication hearing and therefore cannot succeed. |
Dated: 7/02/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
|