ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028516

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Ainars Kanipovs	Ballyleague Mushrooms Limited

Representatives

The claimant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing

Shannon Kelly Peninsula

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00036625-001	11/06/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The claimant did not attend and was not represented at the heating.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent furnished a written submission in advance of the hearing rejecting the complaint and contending that the redundancy constituted a collective and compulsory redundancy , that the conditions of the workers who replaced the claimant and his colleagues were inferior and that as a consequence the claimant had no remedy under the Act .In the alternative the respondent submitted that the offer of re-engagement made by the respondent was unreasonably declined by him.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

I am satisfied that the claimant was duly notified of the date time at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. The claimant did not attend and no application for a postponement was submitted in the weeks preceding the hearing. 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.

Dated: 31-01-2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Key Words: