ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION & RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020023
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Driver | Warehousing & Distribution |
Representatives | Did Not Attend | James McAuliffe of Donal T McAuliffe Solicitors |
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-00026438-001 | 21/02/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00026438-002 | 21/02/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00026438-003 | 21/02/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts1969 following the referral of the complaints and dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence statement relevant to the complaints and dispute.
Background:
The Complainant/Worker was employed as a Driver from 25th February 2007 to 9th November 2018. He was paid €15.64 per hour and worked full time. He has claimed that he was unfairly dismissed, he didn’t get minimum notice and he wasn’t provided with all relevant documentation during an investigation. The Respondent /Employer has rejected these claims. |
1)Unfair Dismissal Act - CA 26438-001
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended, however the Complainant did not. No case was prosecuted on the day. So, the Respondent did not make a presentation of their case.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented. No complaint was prosecuted on the day. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note correspondence on the file advising both parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing. |
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented.
No complaint 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 complaint was prosecuted the claim fails for want of prosecution. I have decided that this complaint was not well founded and so it fails. |
2)Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act - CA 26438-002
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended, however the Complainant did not. No claim was prosecuted on the day. So, the Respondent did not make a presentation of their case.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented. No complaint was prosecuted. |
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.
I have decided that as no complaint was prosecuted the claim fails for want of prosecution.
I have decided that this complaint was not well founded and so it fails.
3)Industrial Relations Act CA 26438-003
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker did not attend and was not represented. No complaint was prosecuted on the day. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer attended, however the Worker did not. No claim was prosecuted on the day. So, the Respondent did not make a presentation of their case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Worker did not attend and was not represented. No complaint was prosecuted. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As no complaint was prosecuted, I recommend that this claim fails for want of prosecution.
I recommend that this claim is not well founded and so it fails.
|
Dated: 25th May 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
No claim prosecuted |