Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Truck Driver

A Recruitment Agency

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-00028016-001

29/04/2019

The Claimant raised a written complaint before the WRC in April 2019. He contended that he had been denied key documentation to assist his claim with the Department of Social Welfare.

The WRC acknowledged the dispute and conveyed that as the Employer had not objected to the proposed Adjudication hearing, the claimant was notified of an impending hearing in his case on 8 August 2019. He did not attend the hearing and made no explanation for his non-attendance. The Employer was represented at hearing and filed a written summary of events from their perspective.

The Claimant submitted that during a 4-week period of lay off, he had not been paid and had been denied pertinent documentation required to secure a DSP payment covering that period and a period post his termination of employment on 14 October 2018.

The Claimant did not attend the hearing to state his case.

The Employer runs a recruitment Agency and submitted a chronology of the claimant’s employment. The Employer confirmed that the claimant worked as a temporary worker as a driver. There was no guarantee of shift work. The claimant made himself unavailable for work for the first week of September 2018.He then requested his P45 on 23 September by text.

The claimant contacted the employer in early October, stating that he had been ill but was now available for work. He signed a new contract and worked for two nights. The claimant requested a letter confirming that he had been laid off for this period to enable a DSP claim. The Employer was unable to accede to this request.

The claimant demanded morning work and became hostile and abusive when this work was not made available to him. On 23 October, he submitted a requested for P45. The Claimant was issued with a P45 dated 2 November 2018. The Claimant requested another letter which confirmed that he was without work for a 4-week period. The Employer submitted copies of the texts received in pursuance of same, which they deemed as offensive. The Employer confirmed that the claimant was provided with a testamentary statement of his unavailability for work during the requested period. This letter was dated 3 December 2018.

The Employer confirmed that the claimant then submitted a written complaint against a Manager dated 26 March 2019 with a 5-day window for response.

The Employer was troubled by the complainant submitted to the WRC as they contended that they had treated the claimant fairly and given him the documentation he had requested.

I am satisfied that the claimant was properly notified of the time date and location of the hearing. He made no appearance at this hearing, neither did he acquaint the PRU with any reason for his non-appearance. I delayed the commencement of the hearing to facilitate any unexpected delay.

I allowed a period of three weeks post hearing to pass to allow for any contact from the claimant. There was none. I am satisfied that the claimant was notified of all communication to the address recorded on his complaint form. This had not been amended.

I provided an opportunity for the claimant to be heard in his own complaint and given his nonappearance at the scheduled hearing, I must find that there is no merit in the dispute.

Recommendation:

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

I have completed my investigation and I have not identified merit in this dispute.

Grievance regarding documentation in employment.