ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026251

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Chef	Chinese Restaurant

Representatives

None

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00032626-001	27/11/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00032626-002	27/11/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00032626-003	27/11/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00032626-004	27/11/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00032626-005	27/11/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00032626-006	27/11/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/02/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 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 Chef from 12th February 2017 to 18th July 2019. He was paid €673.14 per week. He has claimed that he is owed wages, minimum notice, holiday pay, Public Holiday pay and redundancy payment.

1)Payment of Wages Act CA 32626-001/002

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.

Findings and Conclusions:

I note correspondence on the file advising both parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing.

I note that both parties did not attend.

I find that no complaint was prosecuted on the day.

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 complaint was prosecuted this claim fails for want of prosecution.

I have decided that this complaint was not well founded and so it fails.

2)Organisation of Working Time Act CA 32626-003/004

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.

Findings and Conclusions:

I note correspondence on the file advising both parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing.

I note that both parties did not attend.

I find that no complaint was prosecuted on the day.

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 complaint was prosecuted this claim fails for want of prosecution.

I have decided that this complaint was not well founded an and so it fails.

3)Redundancy Payments Act CA 32626 005/006

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.

Findings and Conclusions:

I note correspondence on the file advising both parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing.

I note that both parties did not attend.

I find that no complaint was prosecuted on the day.

Decision:

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

I have decided that as no complaint was prosecuted this claim fails for want of prosecution.

I have decided that this complaint was not well founded an and so it fails.

Dated: 10-09-2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Key Words:

No Shows