ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020195
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Caretaker / Groundsman | A Country Estate |
| Representatives | None | Mark Connellan, Connellan & co |
Complaint(s):
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-00026634-001 | 27/02/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00026638-001 | 27/02/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/08/2019 and 18/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following 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:
The Relationship between the parties had irretrievably broken down. An incident occurred on the 10th of April 2016 and the Complainant lodged his first complaint with the WRC on the 20th of June 2017 under ADJ-00009532. The decision with regard to same issued on the 5th of December 2018.
The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent ended on the 6th of February 2019. He lodged this complaint with the WRC on the 27th of February 2019.
The Complainant attended the hearing in person on the 26th of August 2019. He was quite agitated. He confirmed that he would not continue with the hearing unless the head of the Respondent Trust was in attendance.
I decided that the requirement for the head of the Trust was necessary at the hearing but that the decision maker should be in attendance.
The case was rescheduled for hearing on the 18th of November 2019.
The Complainant filed a number of letters before this rescheduled hearing. Again, he required the figurehead of the Trust to be in attendance. He also requested independent security for him to and from the hearing.
The Complainant advised in correspondence that he wished to destroy the career of the investigator hired by the Respondent to investigate an allegation made against him. The investigator is also an Adjudicator for the WRC in a different part of the country.
When I arrived at the hearing on the 18th November 2018 the Complainant was not in attendance. He had left a letter on my table in the hearing room. In this letter he set out that he was on notice that the head of the Trust /Respondent would not be in attendance as she was out of the country. The Complainant advised that he wouldn’t be in attendance either. He submitted that there was corruption involved by the independent investigator and that he had no choice but to file his claim with the Labour Court or perhaps the High Court. He set out that this was the only way that proper justice would be achieved as he aimed to destroy all involved.
The letter asserted that his case was totally exposed and highlighted there could be no proper justice. The Complainant contended that this case was a typical example of white-collar corruption in Ireland. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
None presented |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
None presented |
Findings and Conclusions:
The onus of proof is on the Respondent to justify the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment. As the Complainant was not prepared to proceed with the adjudication hearing, I could not proceed in his absence. In the circumstances I have no alternative but to conclude that the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
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.
The Complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 12-08-2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
|