ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034945
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Tara Ikoub | Finnstown Castle Hotel |
Representatives | No show | No show |
Complaint(s):
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-00045536-001 | 31/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00045782-001 | 19/08/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/06/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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).
Background:
The complainant stated that she was left short of payment for hours worked. The Hotel in correspondence stated that this was an oversight and would rectify. On the 24th of November 2021 the Hotel wrote to the WRC to state that a settlement agreement had been reached with a document attached detailing that settlement which was signed. That agreement was dated the 18th of November 2021. The settlement payment related to work that was unpaid for a shift worked on the 19th of June 2021. However, on the face of the papers no formal withdrawal by the complainant had been received. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A hearing was arranged for the 27th of June 2022 to hear evidence in this case and the complainant failed to attend. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
A hearing was arranged for the 27th of June 2022 to hear evidence in this case and the respondent failed to attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having regard to the correspondence and the no show by both parties it highly probable that the matter has been resolved. However, the complainant should have formally withdrawn the complaint which she has done. |
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 42 of the Workplace Relations Act provides for the following: 42. (1) An adjudication officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint or dispute referred to him or her under section 41 if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious The term vexatious and frivolous as explained in Delaney and McGrath on Civil Procedure 4th Edition 2018.) is: The meaning of the words “frivolous or vexatious” as used in the context of s.10(1)(b)(ii) of the Data Protection Act 1988 as amended was considered by Birmingham J in Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner,28 where he stated that “]frivolous, in this context does not mean only foolish or silly, but rather a complaint that was futile, or misconceived or hopeless in the sense that it was incapable of achieving the desired outcome.” This description was referred to by Irvine J in her judgment in the Court of Appeal in Fox v McDonald,29 where she stated that “the word ‘frivolous’ when used in the context of O. 19 r, 28 is usually deployed to describe proceedings which the court feels compelled to terminate because their continued existence cannot be justified having regard to the relevant circumstance The parties have reached an agreement; however, the complainant has omitted to withdraw the complaint. I determine that the complaint is dismissed as it would be misconceived to make a decision on a matter that has been resolved between the parties.
|
Dated: 12-07-2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Misconceived |