ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030642
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Carol Donnelly | Persian Properties T/A O'Callaghan Collection |
Representatives | Self- represented | Company representatives |
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-00040746-001 | 02/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00040746-002 | 02/11/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearings: 10/8/21 and 01/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
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 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. On 10/8/2021, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The hearing was adjourned until the 1/2/2022 as the full set of relevant documents was not received by either the WRC or by the complainant.
On 10/8/2021 I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The parties proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence relevant to the complaints and to cross examine witnesses.
CA-00040746-002 is a duplicate of CA-00040746-001 and is withdrawn.
Background:
The complainant submitted a complaint on 2/11/2020 that the respondent had unfairly dismissed her, contrary to the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant attended the first hearing on the 10/8/2021 which was adjourned. The complainant did not attend the reconvened hearing on the 1/2/2022. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended both hearings. The respondent opened evidence on the 10/8/2020 and denied that the dismissal was unfair. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission from the complainant on 2/11/2020 alleging that the respondent had breached sections 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015. A reconvened hearing for that purpose was held on 1/2/2022. There was no appearance by the complainant at the hearing. 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. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
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.
I decide that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 is not well founded. |
Dated: 24th February 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
No show, |