ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032565
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vladimir Maksimov | Strandvaus Ltd Strandvaus Ltd |
Representatives | DID NOT ATTEND | Declan Thomas Ibec, Fergal McLoughlin |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00043196-001 | 23/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/07/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as an HGV Driver from 16th March to 14th January 2021. He was paid €625.00 per week. He has claimed that his employer did not notify him of changes to his contract of employment and that as from 14th January 2021 he was effectively dismissed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note correspondence on file advising the Complainant of the date and time of the hearing. I note that the Complainant did not attend and was not represented. I find that no claim was presented. I awaited two weeks to give the Complainant an opportunity to contact the WRC, but he failed to do so. I find that no claim was prosecuted. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that as no claim was prosecuted this claim is not well founded and so, it fails.
|
Dated: 5th August 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Complainant failed to attend, claim fail because case no prosecuted |