ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029205
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Kevin Francisco Quintanilla Nunez | Canale Food & Beverage Ltd |
Representatives | No appearance | No appearance |
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-00038873-001 | 24/07/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00038874-001 | 24/07/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/08/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I attended the remote hearing to inquire into the complaints and to give the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. The matter was to be heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Neither party attended the remote hearing.
Background:
On the complaint form the complainant stated he was employed as a supervisor with the respondent company from 15 August 2019 to 15 March 2020. He submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 24 July 2020. The complainant claimed he was due payment for 3 weeks which he had worked but for which he had not been paid. He also stated he was not paid for holidays or public holidays worked. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no appearance for or on behalf of the complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance for or on behalf of the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There was no appearance by either party at the remote hearing. I note from the case file that the complainant was notified of the date and time of the hearing by letter and e-mail, dated 02 July 2021. The correspondence was sent to the e-mail address provided by the complainant on his complaint form. The respondent company was notified of the date and time of the hearing by e-mail and letter, dated 02 July 2021. The letter was sent by registered mail to the registered address of the respondent company. The invitation to attend the remote WebEx hearing was sent to both parties by e-mail, dated 11 August 2021. The e-mail invitation contained the link to the remote hearing and instructions on joining the hearing together with contact telephone numbers. I am satisfied that the parties were informed of the date and time of the hearing. Further, I am satisfied that the parties were provided with the contact details needed to attend the remote hearing by video and/or telephone. I waited for 15 minutes after the time the hearing was due to commence but there was no appearance by either party. As the complainant failed to appear to pursue his complaint I find the complaint is not well founded. |
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.
CA-00038873 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant failed to appear to pursue his complaint. I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 23rd August 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Failure to appear to pursue complaint |