Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Painter/Decorator

A Decoration Company

Representatives

Walkinstown Accounting and Taxation Services

Terry Gorry & Co. Solicitors

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-00032730-001

04/12/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00032730-002

04/12/2019

The complainant did not attend the hearing, but a representative attended.

The respondent attended the hearing and was legally represented.

A number of preliminary issues were raised.

The respondent says the complainant’s employment terminated on July 31st, 2017 and therefore neither complaint has been submitted within the statutory time limits.

Secondly, the respondent has been incorrectly identified on the complaint form and there is no legal entity of the name that appears there. It is a business name owned by the complainant’s former employer.

The complainant was on sick leave from September 11th, 2017 until October 8th, 2019. He stated on the complaint form that he rang his employer on October 16th seeking to return to work.

The respondent submitted a P45 showing the date of cessation as being July 31st, 2017.

The respondent submits that this is an abuse of process; the complaint has not been made within the time limits and the wrong respondent has been named.

In general, a complainant must attend a hearing to present his case and only in very exceptional cases is it possible to proceed in their absence.

Such exceptional circumstances will depend on the facts of the case and may, by way of example, arise where there are unavoidable but acceptable reasons for the absence, and the issues in relation to the complaint are not contentious or do not require direct evidence and the opportunity for cross examination, and the respondent consents to the hearing proceeding.

It is probable that all of these factors would require to be present to ensure that the requirements of fair procedure could be fully met, and then it would become a matter for a decision based on the general facts of the case.

None of these exceptional circumstances are present in this case.

The nature of the respondent’s absence on sick leave, and whether he was available for work during that period were all matters that required to be put into evidence. They had a direct bearing, for example on any case he wished to make on the date of termination and its impact on the time limits.

I find therefore that the complainant’s failure to attend the hearing rendered it impossible to consider the complaints.

I am satisfied that the said complainant was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. He arranged to be represented.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any direct evidence relevant to the complaint or to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.

For the reasons set out above I find that complaints CA-00032730-001 and 002 are not well founded.

Non-attendance by complainant.