ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027528
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Installation Technician | An Employer |
Representatives | Did not attend | Mairead Crosby IBEC |
Complaint:
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-00035229-001 | 13/03/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/02/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following 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.
Background:
The Complainant filed his complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977-2015 on 13 March 2020. The Respondent filed a written submission in advance of the hearing. This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated in his Complaint Form that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment. In advance of the hearing detailed correspondences was received from the Complainant’s solicitor stating he had been extensive efforts to try and get in contact with him. However, he was unsuccessful and was left with no option but to come off record. On the date of the hearing the Complainant did not appear. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent filed detailed submission in defence of the claim. At the hearing the Respondent sought to have the case dismissed on the day. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having carefully reviewed all the documentation and based on the particular circumstances of this case I decided to allow the Complainant one further opportunity to confirm that he wished to proceed with his case. He was given a period of 3 weeks to make contact and file his replying submission. No response was received from the Complainant. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
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.
The Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Dated: March 29th 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Una Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal – No Appearance on behalf of Complainant - Not Unfairly Dismissed |