ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030007
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ilmurat Mukhtarov | Ogalas Unlimited Company Homestore and More |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
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-00039641-001 | 07/09/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following 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 was employed as a general operative by the Respondent since 24th November 2014. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The employee was promoted into a new role. On the completion of the 'probation' for this new role, he was summarily informed that he was to be demoted. He informed management that he was dissatisfied with this decision and sought redress. No redress was forthcoming and he was subsequently dismissed. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denies the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant was promoted to a position of warehouse/webstore operative and was placed on probation for six months. After four months he was informed it was not successful and he was returned to his position of store operative on a slightly increased rate. He was due to return to work on 9th March 2019 but said he was ill. N|o grievance was submitted by the Complainant. No sick-cert was received despite requests. The Complainant failed to respond to contact over a number of months or return to work and was then processed as a leaver in June 2019. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing. The Complainant’s solicitors advised they did not receive instructions from the Complainant. I am satisfied that the Complainant’s representatives were 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.
|
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.
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.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 18th January 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
|