ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031839
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Yuanfang Zhang | Telstar Investments Limited T/a Murray Pub Group |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | No show | Telstar Investments Limited T/a Murray Pub Group |
Representatives | Setanta Landers Tully Rinckey Solicitors | Mary Golden LCS Legal. |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00042351-001 | 05/02/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00042351-002 | 05/02/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00042351-003 | 05/02/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00042351-004 | 05/02/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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 brought a number of claims under the respective Acts; however, no written submission was received on behalf of the complainant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A hearing was arranged for the 17th of May 2022 to hear evidence in this case and the complainant failed to attend. |
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 17th of May 2022. There was no appearance by the complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the complainant’s nominated representative as detailed in their complaint form was informed in writing of the date, time and place of the hearing. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I conclude that the following complaints are not well founded: 1. CA-00042351-001 a complaint made under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1997, I determined that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. 2. CA-00042351-002 a complaint made under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I determine that the complainant was not discriminated against, and that the complaint is not well founded. 3. CA-00042351-003 a complaint made under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 as no evidence was presented no determination could be made concerning the complainant’s entitlement under the Act. 4. CA-00042351-004 a complaint made under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, I determine that the complainant was not discriminated against and the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
[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.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
The complaints were referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on the 17th of May 2022. There was no appearance by the complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the complainant’s nominated representative as detailed in their complaint form was informed in writing of the date, time and place of the hearing. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I conclude that the following complaints are not well founded: 1. CA-00042351-001 a complaint made under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1997, I determined that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. 2. CA-00042351-002 a complaint made under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I determine that the complainant was not discriminated against and that the complaint is not well founded. 3. CA-00042351-003 a complaint made under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 as no evidence was presented no determination could be made concerning the complainant’s entitlement under the Act. The complaint is not well founded. 4. CA-00042351-004 a complaint made under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I determine that the complainant was not discriminated against and that the complaint is not well founded.
|
Dated: 14th June 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No show |