ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032542

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Igor Lari	KN Network Services Ireland Limited

Representatives

Vadim Karpenko First National Consulting and Legal Services

Mary Fay, BL instructed by, Ciara Fulton , Jones Cassidy Brett (NI)

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-00043149-001	20/03/2021
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00043149-002	20/03/2021

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/08/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).

The matter was 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 WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The parties were advised by the WRC that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised.

The remote hearing was scheduled for 03/08/2021. The respondent, its representatives and witnesses attended. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant.

I am satisfied that the complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 21/06/2021 advising him of the date and time of the hearing. The complainant had sent an e mail from the respondent’s on 30/07/2021. Having reviewed the file I note that the complainant and his representative were in contact with the WRC and the e mail address did not change. In order to exercise a significant amount of caution the WRC Concierge rang both the complainant and his representative and left messages but there was no contact from either. E mails sent on at the time of the hearing were also not responded to.

I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close and there was no further communication received from or on behalf of the complainant to indicate that there were technical or other difficulties.

Background:

The complainant was commenced employment with the respondent on 13/03/2017. The respondent provides network and build and maintenance for telecommunications across Ireland. He was initially employed as a Cabler and later seconded to the role of Acting Front Line Manager. On 11/03/2020 a crew removed a copper cable without authorisation. This was a “live” cable and the result of his action was that a significant broadband outage occurred. Following an investigation, disciplinary and appeals process the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct as a result of instructing a crew to remove the cable.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant had submitted two complaints: (1) seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and (2) a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the remote hearing to pursue these complaints and/or give evidence.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent’s legal representatives and a large number of witnesses attended the remote hearing on behalf of the respondent. They were prepared to give evidence in defence of the two complaints on behalf of the respondent and in accordance with the written submissions in relation to both the preliminary matter and the substantive matter and accompanying documentation submitted on its behalf.

Findings and Conclusions:

As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the remote hearing to pursue these complaints and/or give evidence in relation to these complaints I conclude that both complaints are not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(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.

CA-00043149-01: 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.

I am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the remoting hearing arrangements. I find that his non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 I find this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00043149-02: Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the remoting hearing arrangements. I find that his non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complaint I find this complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 is not well-founded.

Dated: 16th August 2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Non-attendance. Gross misconduct.