ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029988
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Paul Thomas | Persian Restaurents Limited Macdonalds |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00039217-002 | 18/08/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/12/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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 parties were advised at the outset 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. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
The parties were advised at the outset 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. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing. The remote hearing was scheduled for 02/12/2021. 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 28/10/2021 advising him of the date and time of the hearing. Having reviewed the file I note that the complainant or any representative on his behalf did not contact the WRC or advise of any change in his e mail address. In order to exercise a significant amount of caution the WRC Concierge rang the complainant and left messages but there was no contact from him. E mails sent 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 employed as a crew member with the respondent. He commenced employment on 22/08/2019. He was laid off due to the effects of COVID-19. During the period of lay off he was offered and accepted a transfer to another of the respondent’s restaurants. There were a number of performance issues and the complainant took issue with the manager who was dealing with these. The respondent held a number of meetings to address this and to manage the performance issues. The complainant felt that he would be better suited to his original restaurant and was moved back there. He continued to have some issues and when he did not attend for some of his shifts he was given notice that his contract would be terminated. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 18/08/2020. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing and neither he, or a representative on his behalf made any contact to say that he would not be attending, request a postponement or withdraw the complaint. There was no contact following the hearing to indicate that he had any issue or technical difficulties on the day of the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent and a number of witnesses attended. They were prepared to defend the complaint and their management of the issues the subject of the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
|
Decision:
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.
As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the remote hearing to pursue this complaint and/or give evidence in relation to this complaint I conclude the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 9th December 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Non-attendance. |