ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017445
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Painter | A Painting Business |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00022585-001 | 12/10/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/02/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This case concerns a claim for Minimum Notice on behalf of a Croatian National. The claim is disputed by the Respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a claim that he had worked for the respondent from 20 November 2017 to 28 September 2018. He worked a 39-hour week in return for €682.00 gross per week. The Complainant submitted a detailed complaint where he submitted that he may not have received his correct period of notice on leaving employment. The Complainant elaborated on his working experience in which he expressed a disappointment. He aske whether he was entitled to more notice than he received. The Complainant did not attend the hearing. He did not advance any aspect of the complaint outside the presiding complaint submitted on 12 October 2018. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent disputed the claim. He had hired the complainant as he was from the same part of the world as he was . He hoped to have a year work for him, but work dried up. He gave the complainant notice on Monday 24 September 2018 and it was his case that the complainant left immediately. He was paid notice and annual leave as he did not want to wrong him as he had been a good employee. The Respondent submitted a copy of the notice sent by email . |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have considered the written complaint and the respondent oral response. The Complainant was not in attendance for the hearing. I allowed a period of 10 minutes to address any unexpected delays. I am satisfied that the complainant was correctly notified of the time date and place of hearing and he did not attend. I allowed a period of seven days to pass where there was no further contact by the complainant. The Complainant has not presented to state his case at hearing. I find that his claim cannot succeed. It is not well founded. |
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. Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act. I have found the claim is not well founded. |
Dated: February 19th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Minimum Notice |