ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026750
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Healthcare Assistant | A Healthcare Company |
Representatives | Not present | Lisa Carey Penninsula |
Complaint(s):
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-00034047-001 | 24/01/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/08/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant alleged he was unfairly dismissed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a claim for Unfair Dismissal on January 24th 2020. The Complainant was notified of the Hearing on July 23rd 2020 for a Hearing date of August 18th 2020 at 13.30. The Complainant corresponded with the WRC and provided a witness list. Prior to the day of the Hearing the Complainant corresponded with the WRC and stated “due to unforeseen circumstances” he could not attend the Hearing and sought an adjournment. The WRC replied they would need some supporting information to consider this request or the Hearing would proceed in his absence. No supporting information was supplied by the Complainant. On the day of the Hearing the Complainants Solicitor corresponded, at 12.14pm, with the WRC to state the Complainant would not be attending the Hearing but provided no explanation for his non attendance. The Complainants Solicitor was informed the Hearing would proceed in the Complainants absence. The Complainant in his complaint form stated he was employed from October 5th 2018 to November 5th 2019. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated, and furnished supporting documentation, that the Complainant was employed from October 5th 2018 to October 2nd 2019 and therefore did not have the requisite length of service under the Act to pursue the claim and sought the claim dismissed under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act. The Respondent denied there was an unfair dismissal. |
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.
Section 2.1 (a) of the Act, Exclusions states the following: “This Act shall not apply to any of the following persons; An employee (other than a person referred to in Section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him and whose dismissal does not result wholly or mainly from the matters referred to in Section 6 (2) (f) of this Act.” The Complainant was notified of the Hearing but failed to attend the Hearing for unexplained reasons. The Respondent was present at the Hearing and sought a decision from the Adjudicator that the Complainant did not have the requisite service under Section 2.1. (a) of the Act to proceed with his case. Based on the information supplied to the Hearing regarding the Complainants service I find that the Complainant did not have the requisite service to proceed with his claim under the Act, as he had less than one year’s continuous service and I deem his dismissal fair due to these circumstances. |
Dated: 18th September 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal |