ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028561
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Paul Hughes | Medtronic Vascular Galway Unlimited Company Medtronic Ireland |
Representatives |
| Kevin Feighery Ibec |
Complaints:
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-00036524-001 | 04/06/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00036524-002 | 04/06/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complainant submitted that he was unfairly dismissed and that he did not receive minimum notice.
The complainant was notified of the hearing using the details provided.
The complainant did not attend the remote hearing that was scheduled. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00036524-001
The complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing to advance his case and did not provide an explanation for his non-attendance.
A summary of his complaint on his complaint form was that he had been dismissed in February 2020 and appealed this decision in April 2020 and that the dismissal was procedurally flawed.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00036524-001
The respondent attended the hearing and rejected the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00036524-001
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission from the complainant on 4 June 2020 alleging that the respondent contravened the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation.
A hearing for that purpose was held on 8th September 2021. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing.
The respondent attended the hearing and refuted the claims.
I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and that the complainant’s former representative had informed the complainant of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and that the failure to attend is unexplained.
In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the complaint is not well founded, and that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00036524-002
The complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing to advance his case and did not provide an explanation for his non-attendance.
A summary of his complaint on his complaint form was that the employer did not have to right to dismiss him without notice or pay in lieu of notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00036524-002
The respondent attended the hearing and rejected the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00036524-002
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission from the complainant on 4 June 2020 alleging that the respondent contravened the provisions of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation.
A hearing for that purpose was held on 8th September 2021. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing.
The respondent attended the hearing and refuted the claims.
I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and that the complainant’s former representative had informed the complainant of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and that the failure to attend is unexplained.
In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the complaint is not well founded, and the Act was not contravened. |
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.
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.
CA-000036524-001 In the above circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the complaint is not well founded, and that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. CA-000036524-002 In the above circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the complaint is not well founded and that the Act was not contravened. |
Dated: 06-10-2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal and minimum notice and complainant did not attend |