ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031636
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | David Mooney | CWS Communications Ltd |
Representatives | NONE | Shannon Kelly (Litigation Executive) Peninsula |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00042096-001 | 21/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 (1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 (as substituted) and where a claim for redress under the Unfair Dismissals legislation is being made, the claim is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers any such claim to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said claim heard in the manner prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. In particular, the said Adjudication Officer is obliged to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
In circumstances where the fact of dismissal is not in issue, the evidential burden of truth rests with the Respondent. Per Section 6(6)of the 1977 Act, in determining for the purposes of the Acts whether or not a dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or other of the specified grounds (as outlined in the Act – conduct, redundancy etc.), or that there were other substantial reasons justifying the dismissal.
An Adjudication Officer must, in determining if a dismissal is unfair, have regard to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal (per Section 7).
In this particular instance, and in circumstances where the Complainant herein has referred a complaint of having been unfairly dismissed form his place of employment wherein he had worked for in excess of one year and where the Workplace Relations Complaint Form (dated the 21st of January 2021) issued within six months of his dismissal, I am satisfied that I (an Adjudication Officer so appointed) would have had statutory jurisdiction to hear the within matter.
Where an employee has been dismissed and the dismissal is found to be unfair the employee shall be entitled to redress pursuant to Section 7 of the 1977 Act. Such redress might include re-instatement, re-engagement or compensation for any financial loss attributable to the dismissal where compensation for such loss does not exceed 104 weeks remuneration. The acts, omissions and conduct of both parties will be taken into account when considering the extent of the financial loss and there is an onus on a Complainant to adopt measures to mitigate the financial/ remunerative loss (which includes actual loss as well as estimated prospective loss).
Background:
The Complainant says he was Unfairly Dismissed and has detailed the facts of his dismissal by way of Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 21st of January 2021 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. A previously requested postponement application had been refused. This case was listed to be heard, albeit remotely, on the assigned date. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was in attendance together with representation. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was afforded an appropriate amount of time to engage with this process at the time and date he was invited to participate. The Respondent was present and represented. The WRC case Officer assigned to host this remote hearing sent an email to the Complainant after the hearing time had started to advise him that everyone was waiting on him. I am satisfied that the correct email address was used and that this was the same address that had been consistently used by the Complainant since he has initiated the complaint. In the circumstances, the hearing did not proceed and the Complainant’s claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts has failed. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00042096-001 – I find the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts has failed
|
Dated: 26th July 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|