ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028072
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Damien Crowther | Xpo Transport Solutions Ireland Limited |
Complaint:
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-00036064-001 | 08/05/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00036064-002 | 08/05/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was in attendance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging breaches of the above statutes. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the said complainant was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and he and engaged with the WRC regularly. While noting that the complainant’s legal representative had come off record in the days before the hearing and the complainant had sought a postponement of the hearing, he appears to have assumed that this request for a postponement of itself entitled him to absent himself from the hearing. It did not. My understanding is that he was specifically told that he would have to attend in person to make the application for the postponement. An Adjudicator will give very sympathetic consideration to a request from a complainant in these circumstances for a postponement of the hearing if it is established that his capacity to present his case has been adversely affected. However, whether or not that is the case is a matter which can be best determined by a complainant attending and making his case to an Adjudicator. Many unrepresented complainants present their complaint perfectly adequately and are not disadvantaged in doing so by the lack of professional representation and this is something to be determined on the merits of each case. Simply not showing up is presumptuous and disrespectful to the process and runs the serious risk that a decision will be made on the complaint. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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.
For the reasons set out above complaints CA-00036064-001 and -002 are not well founded. |
Dated: 19th July 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
No Show, Unfair Dismissal |