Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer

A Public Body

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00025427-001

30/01/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00025427-002

30/01/2019

The Claimant in the case filed his complaint on 30 January 2019. He did not attend the hearing. The Employer operates a large Public Service and attended the hearing accompanied by a delegation of four.

I did not have the benefit of any detail on the background and context to the claim outside two short paragraphs submitted on the original complaint form.

The Claimant outlined that he worked as a Clerical Office at the Employer Public service.

CA-00025427-001

He wrote on his complaint form that he had raised issues during an unspecified date with his line Manager and General Manager. He wrote that he had not received an acknowledgement to his request for an external investigation.

CA -00025427-002

The Claimant wrote that he had reported a colleague for not doing her job and engaging in bullying behaviour against him in 2013. He then appears to have been the recipient of a counter complaint of bullying.

The Claimant filed his complaint as detailed above and mentioned that he was not represented. On February 1, 2019, the WRC acknowledged receipt of the complaint lodged under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The letter went on to explain the anticipated hearing process.

On 7 March 2019, both parties were invited to attend a hearing on 3 April 2019. On 25 March 2019, the claimant raised a reluctance to attend a hearing if it involved certain Employer Management. He was requested for clarification of this request and issued with the WRC Guide to Adjudication Hearings. The Claimant continued to express his reluctance in meeting Employer representatives, believing that he could present his case to the Adjudicator alone.

One day before the hearing was to take place, the claimant sought a postponement of the hearing. He wrote that he needed time to secure representation and wrote that he was not prepared to engage with the Employer face to face. This request was refused, and the claimant was informed that the case would proceed.

He did not attend at the hearing .

The Employer operates a large Public Body and attended the hearing prepared to answer the claims listed. The Employer had indicated their willingness to participate in Adjudication on February 1, 2019.

The Employer agreed to a short delay in the hearing while the Adjudicator checked around the building in case the claimant was lost or delayed.

I had read the file of this case prior to the hearing. Once I picked up that the claimant may have been apprehensive regarding attending a hearing, I asked the Post Registration Unit to forward the Claimant a guide to proceedings at WRC.

It seems that the claimant may have misunderstood the purpose of an Adjudication Hearing which is run on a Fair procedures model. Both parties who come into the room are on an equal footing, they are both united in being parties to a complaint. It is not the preserve of either party to dictate who the other party brings to the hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to hold an Investiagtion into the claim made .

The Claimant sought an 11 the hour adjournment which did not match the strict criteria set out by the WRC. He did not accept the outcome of this and withheld his attendance at hearing. It is regrettable that he chose not to attend. I found that to be unfair and unreasonable. Given that claims under the Industrial Relations Acts allow a certain flexibility in terms of conflict resolution, the hearing planned could have served as a fair starting position for the parties.

In anticipation of a having to work separately with both groups, once the outline statements were concluded, I had secured a separate room for that very purpose. I delayed the hearing to allow for any difficulties that the claimant might have had in finding the building. I did a full tour of the premise only to return to the hearing room, where the Employer submitted that they understood that the claimant was at work.

At that point, I declared that the claimant was officially a “no show” at hearing. WRC protocol suggests that one week is to pass post a “no show” during which time, any correspondence submitted by the claimant post hearing is examined. In this case, I heard nothing from the claimant. The Respondent wrote in on April 10 confirming their contact details.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires me to hold an investigation into the claim. I have been unable to complete this in the absence of the claimant, whose non-attendance at hearing, I find unreasonable.

I cannot find merit in the Disputes raised.

CA-00025427-001

I cannot find merit in this Dispute.

CA -00025427-002

I cannot find merit in this Dispute.

Recommendation:

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

CA-00025427-001

I cannot find merit in this Dispute.

CA -00025427-002

I cannot find merit in this Dispute.

Non-Appearance of the Claimant