ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031627
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Emma Gradwell | Cusack Electrical |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Self-Represented |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00042125-001 | 25/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00042125-002 | 25/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00042125-003 | 25/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/07/2021 & 15/09/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints 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 Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 21st April 2020. The Complainant’s job title was that of “showroom manager”. She worked 40 hours per week and was paid an hourly rate of €10.50 per hour. The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 8th January 2021. On 25th January 2021 the Complainant lodged complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act with the Commission. An initial hearing in relation to this matter was convened for 15th July 2021. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. At the outset of this hearing, it was determined that the matter would involve a conflict of evidence and would require the administration of an oath. As there was no legal authority to administer the same on the date of the hearing, the matter was adjourned to allow for the same. This adjournment also allowed the parties to exchange further documentation relevant to the matter. A further hearing was convened for 15th September 2021. There was no appearance by either the Complainant or the Respondent at this hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant while in attendance on the first day of hearing, she did not attend the resumed date. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the hearing and that all reasonable efforts were made to contact her in relation to the same. I further note no communication was received following the hearing seeking to explain her absence. On the first date of hearing no evidence in support of the Complainant’s case was taken as the Adjudicator had no power to administer an oath for such purpose. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent similarly did not attend the resumed day for hearing. Having reviewed the file I am further satisfied that they were on notice of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In circumstances whereby the Complainant did not offer any evidence in support of her complaints, I find that the same are not well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00042125-001 I find that the complaint is not well-founded. CA-00042125-002 I find that the complaint is not well-founded. CA-00042125-003 I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 10th June 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Non-attendance, resumed hearing |