Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Senior Retail Betting Assistant

Retail Bookmaker

Representatives

Mandate Trade Union

Arthur Cox

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00021993-001

21/09/2018

The Complainant works as a Senior Retail Betting Assistant in a retail bookmakers.

The Complainant has submitted a complaint to the Adjudication Services of the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

The Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing. The Complainant’s representative attended the adjudication hearing.

The Respondent attended the adjudication hearing.

The Respondent submits that the Respondent named on the complaint referral form was not the Complainant’s employer. The Respondent requested that complaint referral form be amended to reflect the name of the Complainant’s actual employer.

I must first decide whether the Respondent named on the complaint referral form can be changed to the correct name of the Complainant’s employer.

In making my decision I am guided by the Superior Courts which have held that statutory adjudicative bodies should not adopt a more stringent procedural approach than that adopted in ordinary litigation.

Order 15, Rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (S.I. No. 15 of 1986) makes provision for the amendment of proceedings initiated in the High Court in which parties are improperly named.

In County Louth VEC –V- Equality Tribunal [2009] IEHC 370, the High Court found that:

“If it is permissible in court proceedings to amend pleadings where the justice of the case requires it, then, a fortiori, it should also be permissible to amend a claim as set out in a form such as an originating document before a statutory tribunal, so long as the general nature of the complaint remains the same.”

I note that it is the Respondent who has sought the change of name. I further note that there is no dispute about whether the complaint is properly before the WRC and that the correct Respondent has submitted to the jurisdiction of the WRC. I find, therefore, that neither party to the claim would be prejudiced by allowing the amendment of the name as requested.

Accordingly, I am prepared to accede to the Respondent’s application to amend the name of the employer on the complaint referral form.

I must now consider the substantive matter in the herein case.

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission from the Complainant on 21st September 2018 alleging that the Respondent contravened the provisions of  Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 in relation to him. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 19th November 2018. There was no appearance by the Complainant at the hearing.   I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing 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 complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.

I find that the within complaint is not well-founded.

No show by Complainant