CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 and SECTION 41 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision issued on 25 January 2022 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029970
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | John Talbot | Department Of Expenditure & Reform Dper |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Complainant | A Government Department |
Representatives | No Appearance | Peter Leonard BL instructed by Chief State Solicitor's Office |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00039954-001 | 21/09/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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
Background:
The Complainant submitted his Complaint Form to the Workplace Relation Commission which was received on 21 September 2020. It is his complaint that his employer has contravened the legal provisions in relation to the number of successive fixed-term contract that can be issued to him pursuant to Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not appear at the hearing of this case. I waited a reasonably amount of time for the Complainant to appear, but he did not attend the hearing. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that he was informed of the hearing, |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance by the Complainant and therefore, no case to answer, by the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the basis the Complainant did not appear to proceed with this case, I find the case is 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.
The Complainant’s complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 25-01-22
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Una Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Protection of Employees – No appearance |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029970
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | John Talbot | Department Of Expenditure & Reform Dper |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | No Appearance | Peter Leonard BL instructed by Chief State Solicitor's Office |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00039954-001 | 21/09/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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
Background:
The Complainant submitted his Complaint Form to the Workplace Relation Commission which was received on 21 September 2020. It is his complaint that his employer has contravened the legal provisions in relation to the number of successive fixed-term contract that can be issued to him pursuant to Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not appear at the hearing of this case. I waited a reasonably amount of time for the Complainant to appear, but he did not attend the hearing. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that he was informed of the hearing, |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was appearance by the Complainant and therefore, no case to answer, by the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the basis the Complainant did not appear to proceed with this case, I find the case is 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.
The Complainant’s complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 25-01-22
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Una Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Protection of Employees – No appearance |