ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031835
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Krzysztof Blask | Emirates Airline |
Representatives |
| Owen Keany BL instructed by Bláthnaid Evans Leman Solicitor |
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-00042166-001 | 27/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00042166-002 | 27/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/12/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were advised in the notice of hearing letter that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were also advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The complainant and the respondent were advised of the date time of the hearing on 22/11/2021. A Webex invitation was sent by the WRC to all participants on 10/12/2021. This e mail provided details of the link to the hearing along with “dial-in” instructions if required. The complainant sent an e mail to the WRC thirty minutes before the hearing to say that he had difficulties connecting to the session and requesting that the hearing be rescheduled. He was advised to connect to the hearing but did not do so. He was contacted by the WRC, but he did not answer his phone. His representative was then contacted, and he expressed surprise at this development as he had not heard from the complainant.
The respondent, its representatives and witnesses attended the hearing. In order to exercise an abundance of caution I waited for some time to see if the complainant would log or on dial in to the hearing. He did not do so, and I then concluded the hearing. The complainant contacted the WRC after the hearing to say that his phone was not working and that he could not connect and inquiring if it was possible to move the hearing. He also said that he had issues with his laptop computer. He was advised that the hearing commenced as scheduled and that he was given ample opportunity to connect and ensure that his equipment was in working order. He was also advised that the WRC has a robust postponement policy, and these are granted in exceptional circumstances and for substantial reasons and usually well in advance of the hearing.
Having checked with the WRC Concierge I received confirmation that there was no log on attempts made by the complainant at any stage prior to or at the time of the hearing. Given the circumstances outlined above I do not accept that the complainant has outlined or provided any evidence that his non-attendance was due to exceptional circumstances or for substantial reasons.
Background:
The complainant was employed as an airport services agent with the respondent. He commenced employment on 12/01/2015 and was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 15/12/2020. He was paid €2,500 gross per month and worked 37.5 hours per week. He submitted his complaints to the WRC on 17/01/2020. The complainant advised the WRC that he was not pursuing the complaint (CA-99942166-002) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. In his complaint form the complainant submitted that he was unfairly selected for redundancy and that the process was not fair an objective. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
As outlined above the complainant did not log on or dial in to the hearing. No representative attended on his behalf. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent, its representatives and a number of witnesses attended the hearing and were prepared to defend the complaints. The respondent also provided a submission and an outline of the legal principles. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the complainant was notified of the date and time of the remote hearing. He was also provided with log-on details and also “dial-in” arrangements in the event that this was necessary. I find that the complainant did not log on to the hearing, did not dial in to the hearing and did not respond to the contact from the WRC at the time of the hearing. In these circumstances I find that this 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(s) 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.
CA-99942166-001: I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-99942166-002: This complaint was withdrawn by the complainant on 30/11/2021. |
Dated: 5th January 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal. Non-attendance. |