ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030855
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mark Fahey | John Corbett Motorvillage |
Representatives | self | self |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040972-001 | 13/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2012 | CA-00040972-002 | 13/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00040972-003 | 13/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00040972-004 | 13/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00040972-005 | 13/11/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/06/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complaints were referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on the 10th of June 2022. The complainant attended for a brief period and stated that he would have to leave the hearing as he was at work and customers would need to be met and he could not attend for all the hearing. The Adjudicator explained that a hearing had been arranged so that his complaints could be heard, and that the respondent also could be heard. It was not possible to be partly in attendance and partly absent during the hearing. The hearing was stopped, and a recess taken, to facilitate the complainant so that he could arrange his affairs so that he could attend. After the recess, there was no show or appearance by the complainant. He informed the concierge facilitating the remote hearing that he was too busy at work to attend. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A hearing was arranged for the 10th of June 2022 to hear evidence in this case and the complainant failed to return after a recess so that his case could be heard. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing and was ready to present their case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaints were referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on the 10th of June 2022. The complainant withdrew from the hearing and in those circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the complaints are not well founded; the complainant was not unfairly dismissed, and the complainant has not made out a claim for redundancy. |
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 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.
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-00040972-001 a complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 was referred to me for adjudication. I determine that the complaint is not well founded as the complainant withdrew from the hearing and failed to present his case and the respondent was ready to present his case. In these circumstances the complaint is not well founded. CA-00040972-002 a complaint under regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006-SI No. 507 of 2012 was referred to me for adjudication. I determine that the complaint is not well founded as the complainant withdrew from the hearing and failed to present his case and the respondent was ready to present his case. In these circumstances the complaint is not well founded. CA-00040972-003 a complaint under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 was referred to me for adjudication. I determine that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed as the complainant withdrew from the hearing and failed to present his case and the respondent was ready to present his case. In these circumstances the complaint is not well founded. CA-00040972-004 a complaint under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 was referred to me for adjudication. I determine that the complainant had not made out a claim for redundancy and dismiss the claim. The complainant withdrew from the hearing and failed to present his case and the respondent was ready to present his case. In these circumstances the complaint is not well founded. CA-00040972-005 a complaint under section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 was referred to me for adjudication. I determine that the complaint is not well founded. The complainant withdrew from the hearing and failed to present his case and the respondent was ready to present his case. In these circumstances the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 12th July 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Withdrew from hearing. |