ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031701
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Atiq Ur Rehman | Mervosh Limited trading as Maxol |
Representatives |
| Caoimhe Ruigrok BL Florence Hovenden Kelly Solr., Rennick Solrs.. |
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-00042206-001 | 29/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00042206-002 | 29/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/07/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 (1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 (as substituted) and where a claim for redress under the Unfair Dismissals legislation is being made, the claim is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers any such claim to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said claim heard in the manner prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. In particular, the said Adjudication Officer is obliged to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
In addition to the Complaint brought under the Unfair Dismissals legislation above, the Complainant has made further allegations that the Employer herein has contravened provisions and/or enactments of Acts (generally protective employment Acts) which have been specified in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. In this instance a complaint has been made seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
As the Adjudicator assigned to deal with these matters, my obligation is to hear these further complaints in accordance with the mechanism set out in part 4 (and in particular, section 41) of the 2015 Act. Having heard the complaints in the manner so prescribed I am entitled to consider redress in accordance with the Redress Provisions outlined in Schedule 6 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff.
I am satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.
Background:
The Complainant was engaged as a Sales Assistant since November 2018. The employment relationship was terminated on the 14th of December 2020. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s complaint form states that he was unfairly dismissed and entitled to Minimum Notice. The Complainant did not present himself at the time and date allotted for the hearing of this case. The Complainant was notified by the WRC of the proposed time and date by way of email as provided for in legislation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was legally represented, and I was provided with a comprehensive submission in advance of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not present at the remote meeting set up for the hearing of this case. I am satisfied that the Complainant was on Notice of the hearing in the same way as the Respondent and I (as Adjudicator) had been put on Notice by the appointed member of the Administrative Staff in the WRC, acting as Host to the meeting. I am satisfied that every effort was made by the said WRC Host to try and communicate with the Complainant both by phone and by email for up to thirty minutes after the meeting was due to commence. The Complainant remained uncontactable. I advised the Respondent that I would make a final decision herein after the lapse of two days, during which period the Complainant may have come forward with some explanation for his non-attendance. The Complainant never came forward. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00042206-001 – The Claim for Unfair Dismissal fails Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00042206-002 - The Complaint herein is not well-founded |
Dated: 26-08-21
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|