ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021028
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | An Employer |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | None | None |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00027692-002 | 12/04/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/06/2019 and 11/07/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 12th April 2019, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act.
The complaint was initially scheduled for adjudication on the 13th June 2019. While the complainant had whatsapped the respondent owner about the June hearing date, it became apparent that the formal notification of the hearing was posted to the building site where the parties worked. I established that they had finished work before the date of the notification, so it was almost certain that the respondent did not receive formal notification. The complainant attended on the 13th June 2019 but there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.
I had no choice but to adjourn the June hearing and a new date of adjudication was fixed for the 11th July 2019. On the July date, the inverse occurred: the respondent owner attended, but the complainant did not. There was no request for an adjournment and no explanation given for the complainant’s non-attendance. I have given time in order for this to be provided.
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
While the complainant set out the complaint in the complaint form and attended on the first scheduled date, he did not attend the second date to advance his case. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent owner attended on the July date while he had not attended on the June date. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There are unfortunate circumstances in this case. The complainant attended in June 2019 to make his case, but this could not proceed as I became aware that the respondent would not have received formal notification of the hearing. I accept fully that the complainant whatsapped the owner to discuss the pending hearing and stated the date of the June hearing. This cannot substitute for the actual formal notification being received by the respondent. I had to adjourn to the July date. The complainant did not attend the July hearing date. Fair procedures require that parties are able to present evidence and to listen to and challenge the evidence of the other party. In a case of an oral hearing, this requires parties to be in the same room at the same time (be that physically or online). The first step of the process is the complainant sets out the basis of the alleged contravention. This did not occur in July, so I must find that the complaint is not well-founded as the complainant has not set out the basis of the alleged contravention. |
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.
CA-00027692-002 I decide that the complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is not well-founded. |
Dated: 21st August 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham