ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031569
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Michael Jones | Ichigo Ichie Limited |
Representatives | None | None |
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-00042060-001 | 19/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Aideen Collard
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘WRC’) referred the aforesaid complaint received on 19th January 2021, to me for adjudication. I held a remote hearing on 24th June 2021 at 3pm pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. I proceeded to hearing at the scheduled time and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence. The Respondent’s owner and an associate were in attendance on behalf of the Respondent. There was no attendance by the Complainant. I satisfied myself that a letter dated 25th May 2021 had issued to the Complainant at his correct email address, confirming the date and time of the hearing and he had further been issued with a Webex link for this hearing. The Complainant had also been copied with the Respondent’s written submission by email and had responded to same. I was made aware that the Complainant had emailed the WRC on 22nd June 2021 stating: “Unfortunately I don’t have access to microphone on my phone. I’m also finding it difficult to find the time off work.” He enquired about postponing until face-to-face hearings return. The WRC emailed the Complainant back on the same date confirming: “You will have to email postponements@workplacerelations.ie and request a postponement. The postponement officer will decide if your reasons are sufficient enough to grant a postponement. I am not sure if having no microphone will be a sufficient reason as there is an option to dial in so it will be like making a phone call. We will be able to hear you and you will hear us but we won’t be able to see.” I confirmed with WRC Administration that there had been no application by the Complainant for a postponement. I heard from the Respondent and allowed a period of time to elapse before closing the hearing. No further communications were received by or on behalf of the Complainant indicating any difficulties or formally withdrawing this complaint. It is therefore necessary to issue a decision in this matter to bring it to a conclusion.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s owner and an associate were in attendance at this hearing prepared to present evidence in defence of this complaint in accordance with a written submission and documentation submitted and the Complainant’s length of service given a break in contracts was also put in issue.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 claiming unfair dismissal by the Respondent. There was no attendance by the Complainant at this hearing to pursue this complaint and/or give evidence including addressing the issue of service.
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to this complaint. I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the remote hearing of this complaint as scheduled for 24th June 2021 at 3pm by virtue of his email communications with the WRC. I am further satisfied that the Complainant was aware that he either had to apply to the WRC for a postponement or attend the hearing to pursue his complaint. I am not satisfied that the Complainant was prevented from attending this hearing owing to the absence of a microphone on his phone and had been afforded the option of dialing in as explained to him. I therefore consider his non-appearance at the hearing due to work commitments without further communication to constitute an abandonment of his complaint. In the absence of pursuit of this complaint and/or any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complainant, I find that he was not unfairly dismissed.
Dated: 26th July 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Aideen Collard