ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030266
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sean Donnelly | Waterford County Council |
Representatives | Ms. Ger Malone, SIPTU | Mr. Keith Irvine, Local Government Management Agency |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 | CA-00039216-002 | 18/08/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/07/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, following the referral of the complaint and dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint and dispute.
Background:
The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 6th August 2015. At all times his role was described as that of “general operative” or “semi-skilled operative”. On 18th August 2020, the Worker lodged the present complaint and dispute with the Commission. On 19th November 2020, the Employer positively elected to engage in with the trade dispute as referred under the Industrial Relations Acts. A hearing in relation to this matter was convened and finalised on 19th July 2021. This hearing was conducted 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. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing. At the outset of the hearing, the Worker’s representative stated that they did not wish to proceed under the present legislation and that the matter would proceed as a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Act only. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At the outset of the hearing, the Complainant’s representative stated that she did not intend to pursue the present complaint. As such, no evidence was adduced in relation to this particular legislation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As the Complainant’s stated that he did not intend to pursue the present complaint, no defence to the same was offered by the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In circumstances whereby the Complainant stated that they did not wish to pursue the complaint, I find that the same is not well-founded. |
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.
I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 22nd November 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
|