ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032075
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Anna Pilichowska | Woo .Design |
Representatives |
| Nicola Dowling, Williams Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00042592-001 | 18/02/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/07/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were advised by letter dated 01/06/2021 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. It was also explained to the parties in the same letter, that where there is a serious conflict of evidence in the complaint before an Adjudication Officer that will require an adjournment of the hearing to await the amendment to the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 to grant Adjudication Officers the power to administer the oath and to provide a punishment for the giving of false evidence. No issues or concerns were raised in relation to these matters by either party.
Background:
The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 08/09/2020. She did not receive any statement in relation to her terms and conditions of employment. She submitted her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 18/02/2021. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing and advised the WRC that she would be unable to attend as she had changed jobs and would be unable to request a day off in order to participate in the hearing. She was given details of the postponement process and advised that any postponement should be submitted in writing and accompanied by relevant supporting documentation. The complainant was also advised that her request should establish that her unavailability for pre-existing and/or unavoidable reasons. No such request was received. The complainant submitted a letter which outlined her complaint. The complainant submitted that she commenced her employment on 08/08/2020 and her terms of employment were given to her verbally and in broad terms. She requested written confirmation but did not receive those. As additional duties were given to her the was concerned about the amount of responsibility she now had. The complainant went on sick leave on 23/02/2021. She submitted her resignation on 09/03/2021. The complainant did not provide any further details in relation to her employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s representative attended the hearing and was prepared to respond to any evidence provided by the complainant. The respondent had prepared a draft terms and conditions of employment in relation to the complainant but did not have an opportunity to discuss these with her. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission on 18/02/2021 alleging that the complainant was unfairly dismissed by his former employer, the respondent and seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A remote hearing for that purpose was held on 08/07/2021. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing by e mail on 01/06/2021 of the date, time of the hearing. The complainant was issued with the log-on details and contact details on 29/06/2021 at which the hearing to investigate the complaint with the reference numbers CA-00042592-001 would be held. The respondent was issued with the same details. The complainant contacted the WRC by e mail on 05/07/2021 to say that she would not be able to attend the hearing as she had changed employment and would not be in a position to request a day off. She also provided a written statement which outlined the context of her complaint. The WRC provided the complainant with details of the postponement process and advised that any postponement should be submitted in writing and accompanied by relevant supporting documentation. The complainant was also advised that her request should establish that her unavailability for pre-existing and/or unavoidable reasons. No such request was received. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me at the hearing, 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 complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I conclude that this complaint is not well-founded, and I decide accordingly. |
Dated: 16/07/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Terms and conditions. Non-attendance. |