ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028921
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Stephen Mc Cabe | Getfood Ltd |
Representatives | No attendance | Paul Whelan |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00038434-001 | 30/06/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00038434-002 | 30/06/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/04/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the UnfairDismissals Acts, 1977 - 2016following the referral of the complaints 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 complaints.
The parties attended on 20 August 2021. On that occasion there was no visual appearance by the Respondent and the hearing was adjourned to be rearranged either in person or remotely. Due to the ongoing circumstances caused by Covid-19 it was not possible to arrange an in person hearing within a reasonable timeframe. The remote hearing was reconvened and links to access the hearing were issued on 30 March-the date and time of the hearing having issued on 9 February 2022.
On the morning of the hearing, April 1st, 2022 at 08.16, the Complainant sent an email to the concierge as follows:
‘I am not well at the moment. I cannot go forward with the meeting.’ At 09.56 the Case Officer emailed the Complainant as follows:
‘Please clarify if you intend to apply for a postponement which can be done by filling out the forms attached and mailing then directly to….’ And ‘If you are unable to attend the hearing and do not wish to apply for a postponement due to ill health please indicate if you wish to withdraw the claims.’
There was no reply from the Complainant, nor did he seek a postponement. While this correspondence was not all notified to the undersigned prior to the hearing, the notification of the email from the Complainant on the morning of the hearing was brought to my attention by the concierge shortly before the hearing was due to commence. The Respondent representative did attend the hearing albeit with connection difficulties. As no postponement was sought or granted to the Complainant, his nonattendance was treated as no show and therefore as no evidence was presented to support the complaints and neither had he provided any details to support the statements made in his complaint forms, the complaints must fail.
Background:
The complaints submitted on the WRC forms were submitted on 30/06/2020(PW) and 06/07/2020(UD) respectively. This decision addresses the two complaints-ADJ-00028926 also refers. With the complaints, the Complainant had submitted a statement with supporting documentation explaining the reason for the delay in submitting the complaints. The Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act related to delayed payments in wages and incomplete payments. No details of the shortfall were provided aside from an overall amount of €800. The complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act was described as a constructive dismissal on the claim form on grounds of the Complainant having exercised his rights under the Minimum Wage Act. The Complainants form stated that he commenced employment on 29/10/2019 and his employment ended on 23/12/2019. His gross monthly pay was given as €1252.40 for a 32-hour week. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
No evidence was presented at the hearing to support the complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As no evidence was provided to support the complaints the Respondent was not placed in evidence to defend the complaints which he denied were valid and he had sent an email to the Complainant prior to the first day of hearing re a settlement he said the parties reached in 2020. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As no evidence was presented to support the complaints, the complaints must fail and be deemed not well founded. |
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:
Payment of Wages Act 1991
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-00038434-001 The complaint by Stephen McCabe against Get food Ltd under the Payment of Wages Act alleging non-payment orunderpayment of wages is not well founded CA-00038534-002 The claim by Stephen McCabe of Unfair Dismissalby Getfood Ltd is not wellfounded. |
Dated: 5th April 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Non-Payment of wages/unfair dismissal |