ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035175
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Anthony Kennedy | I R D North Mayo West Sligo |
Representatives | No attendance | G Quinn BL instructed by Paul Brennan Sol. |
Complaint(s):
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-00046334-001 | 21/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/08/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This case is concerned with a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by a person employed on a CE scheme. The Complainant failed to provide any statement of his case apart from a short few lines on the complaint form. In response to correspondence from the undersigned prior to the hearing, pointing out a question of the application of the Unfair Dismissal Act to his case, he did provide a statement from revenue showing the start and finish dates of his employment. However, he did not provide the statement of case also requested and he did not attend the scheduled hearing. A period of thirty minutes was allowed for a late attendance at which point the hearing was closed.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing and as such, no evidence was provided to support the complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant provided written submissions and documents to the WRC in which they contested the jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer to hear a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act on the ground that the Complainant had less than twelve months service at the time of his dismissal. The Respondent also set out grounds as to why the dismissal was not unfair. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As no evidence was presented to support the complaint, the claim of an unfair dismissal is not well founded. |
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.
CA-00046334 The complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Anthony Kennedy against IRD North West Mayo Sligo C.L.G is not well founded and therefore no redress to the Complainant is justified. |
Dated: 23rd August 2022.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words: Alleged Unfair Dismissal