Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eugenija Sabaliauskaite

Mowlam Nursing House

Representatives

The Complainant was not represented

Mr. Alastair Purdy from Purdy Fitzgerald Solicitors

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-00030708-001

03/09/2019

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a General Assistant from 29 August, 2016 to 5 May, 2019 when her employment was terminated. The Complainant claims that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment. The Respondent disputes the claim of unfair dismissal and contends that the Complainant was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct.

The Complainant failed to attend the hearing to provide evidence in support of the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

The Respondent attended the hearing and was available to provide evidence in relation to the complaint.

This complaint was scheduled for hearing by remote means on 15 April, 2021 at 9 am. The Complainant did not attend the hearing. I note that this was the second occasion that a hearing date had been scheduled by the WRC in relation to this matter. The Complainant had already been granted a postponement of the hearing on 11 February, 2020 in order to allow her the opportunity to obtain legal representation in this matter.

The Complainant had sent an e-mail to the WRC at 18:35 on the evening before the hearing (14 April, 2021) seeking a further postponement of the hearing on the grounds that she was out of the country. The Respondent opposed this application for postponement and submitted that one of its key witnesses, who is no longer in its employment, had taken time off from her current employment to be available to give evidence at the hearing. The Respondent indicated that this witness would have difficulties in obtaining time off work on a further occasion to attend the hearing in this matter. 

Having carefully considered this matter, I have decided not to accede to the Complainant’s latest application for a postponement of the hearing in relation to this complaint. In arriving at my decision in this matter, I have taken the following points into consideration:

·       The instant complaint was referred to the WRC on 03 September, 2019 and I am satisfied that the WRC has made all reasonable attempts to proceed with the complaint in a timely and efficient manner. The Complainant has already been afforded a postponement of the hearing in relation to this complaint on 11 February, 2020 in order to obtain legal representation.

·       Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that a person is entitled to have their civil rights determined within a reasonable timeframe by an independent and impartial tribunal. In this regard, the WRC’s Adjudication Service is obliged to adhere to the principles of natural justice which means that it must ensure fairness for both parties in relation to its procedures. I am satisfied that if the WRC was to grant any further postponements on the basis of the prevailing circumstances in this case, it may be construed as an infringement upon the Respondent’s rights to have this matter determined within a reasonable timeframe.

·       The Complainant was notified by letter dated 6 March, 2021 that the hearing in this matter would take place by remote means on 15 April, 2021. However, the Complainant did not inform the WRC that she was seeking a further postponement until 18:35 on 14 April, 2021 i.e. the day before the hearing was scheduled to take place. The hearing notification letter clearly set out the procedures for making an application for postponement including the requirements that it be made at the earliest possible opportunity and be accompanied by relevant supporting documentation. I am satisfied that the Complainant’s application was not submitted in a timely manner and she did not provide any supporting documentation to confirm that she was unable to attend on the date in question.

·       The hearing of this complaint was scheduled to take place by remote means, and therefore, the statement by the Complainant that she was out of the country on the material date in question is not of itself a valid reason to preclude her participation at the hearing. The Complainant did not provide any indication to suggest that she did not have access to the required IT equipment in order to facilitate her participation in a remote hearing from the location where she was situated on the date of the hearing.

Having regard to the foregoing, I am satisfied that the WRC has made all reasonable attempts to proceed with the determination of this complaint in a timely and efficient manner. I find that the Complainant’s failure to attend the hearing on 15 April, 2021 in the circumstances to be unreasonable. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.

I conclude that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.

Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2015 – Complainant’s Failure to Attend the Hearing - Postponement Application – Complaint not well founded