Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Martin  Fitzgerald

Crown Records and Relocations Limited

Representatives

 M.W. Keller & Son Solicitors. No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant 

Peter O'Connor & Son Solicitors .No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at hearing

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00039566-001

02/09/2020

This matter was heard by way of Remote Hearing pursuant to Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and SI 359/2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

On September 2, 2020, the Complainants Solicitor submitted a complaint of Unfair Dismissal against the named Respondent.

On 28 January 2021, the Respondent represented by a Solicitor filed a denial of the claim and a commitment to forward submissions.

Neither party filed submissions in the case and neither party attended the hearing set for 11 August 2021.

The Complainants written complaint was received by WRC on 2 September 2020. This complaint reflected that the Complainant had worked as a General Operative at the Respondent named business from January 1, 2013 to May 15, 2020. He was paid a monthly salary.

The Complainant recorded that he had been unfairly dismissed and linked his complaint to another made against a separately named company.

The Complainant did not furnish any further submission in the case.

The Complainants Solicitor sought access to the Respondents submission in response to the claim. None had been received up to and including the hearing day.

On the morning of August 11, 2021, the Complainants Solicitor contacted the WRC to inform that the parties had reached a settlement and indicated that the complaint was likely to be withdrawn by the end of the week. He was informed that the WRC did not operate a system for liberty to re-enter a complaint and the hearing would proceed as scheduled.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at hearing. A WRC Concierge contacted the Complainants Solicitor by phone and invited him to join the remote hearing to explain matters. The Complainants Solicitor refused to attend the hearing and attributed this to unspecified IT difficulties.

There has been no further contact from the Complainant or his Representative.

Solicitors for the Respondent came on record in the case on 28 January 2021.

In referring to CA-00039566-001, the case number for the instant case, and naming the client as associated with the named Respondent in the case, while linking the separate business also named by the complainant, the following was recorded.

Our Client denies all claims made by the Applicant. We will forward detailed submissions in due course.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at hearing. No submissions were filed.

The Respondent has not made any further contact with the WRC.

I have been asked to decide in a claim for Unfair Dismissal. I was keen to meet with the parties at hearing to explain the changes that have occurred in our procedures at WRC following the Supreme Court case of Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and ors [2021] IESC 24, in addition to the changes which have followed the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021, which came into effect on Thursday 29 July 2021.

I am satisfied that both parties were on proper notice of the hearing and decided not to attend the hearing on the basis that the matter had been settled. I am pleased for the parties that the matter has been compromised, However, the complaint has not been withdrawn and remains a live complaint before me.

I proceeded to hold the hearing as I am obliged to do. Neither party presented at hearing, yet, both parties were fully equipped with log in details and in the complainant’s case, the Complainants Solicitor was contacted to join just prior to the hearing commencing to provide an update on the case. This request was refused.

I was disappointed that neither party presented. I waited 25 minutes in case of late joiners and proceeded to hold and conclude the hearing in the case.

I have waited the obligatory 5 days under WRC protocol and have not received any further communication or explanation for nonattendance at hearing from the parties. I have not received notice of withdrawal of the claim.

I find that it was open to the parties to seek a postponement in advance of the hearing and neither party sought that postponement. No submissions were received from either party. Neither party made an appearance in the case.

I find the lack of engagement by the parties with the scheduled hearing in the case to be unreasonable and disrespectful in the extreme. I would ask both parties to reflect on this considering the critical mass of customers who remain keen to access a hearing time at WRC.

 However, I must complete my decision in the case.

I find that in the absence of both parties at hearing, the void in written submissions and lack of evidence adduced, the circumstances known to me in the case do not meet the test for an unfair dismissal.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

The Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Non-Appearance at Hearing