ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023017
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Porter | Facilities Company |
Complaints:
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-00029634-001 | 11/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00029634-002 | 11/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00029634-003 | 11/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00029634-004 | 11/07/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/12/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Porter from 26th August 2006 to 10th July 2019. He was paid €382.20 + 50 per week. He has claimed that he was unfairly dismissed, didn’t get minimum notice, holidays and public holidays. |
The Complainant did not attend the hearing. On the day of the hearing he sent an email advising that he was unwell and could not attend. He sought a rescheduling of the hearing. He was asked by the WRC to send in medical evidence to support his position. He did not send any supporting documentation.
1)Unfair Dismissals Act CA 29634-001
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend and no case was prosecuted. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As no case was prosecuted the Respondent was not required to make a statement/response. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that the Complainant did not attend. I find that as he failed to send to the WRC any supporting document to allow the Adjudication Officer to consider his request for a rescheduling of this hearing, I find that no claim was prosecuted. |
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.
I have decided that as no claim was prosecuted this claim fails for want of prosecution.
I have decided that this claim is not well founded and so it fails.
2)Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act CA 29634-002
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend no case was prosecuted. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As no case was prosecuted the Respondent was not required to make a statement. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that the Complainant did not attend. I find that as he failed to send to the WRC any supporting document to allow the Adjudication Officer to consider his request for a rescheduling of this hearing, I find that no claim was prosecuted. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that as no claim was prosecuted this claim fails for want of prosecution.
I have decided that this claim is not well founded and so it fails.
3)Organisation of Working Time Act CA 29634-003/004
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend no case was prosecuted. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As no case was prosecuted the Respondent was not required to make a statement. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that the Complainant did not attend. I find that as he failed to send to the WRC any supporting document to allow the Adjudication Officer to consider his request for a rescheduling of this hearing, I find that no claim was prosecuted. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that as no claim was prosecuted this claim fails for want of prosecution.
I have decided that this claim is not well founded and so it fails.
|
Dated: 28-01-2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Non-Attendance |