ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032905
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Natalia Wroblewska | Firstcare Ireland (Earlsbrook) Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Barry Kenny, Kenny Sullivan Solicitors | Niamh Cassidy, Hayes Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00043297-001 | 29/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00043297-002 | 29/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00043297-003 | 29/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andSection 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. The hearing was heard remotely, 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. The complainant’s legal representative attended the hearing but stated that he was unable to contact the complainant and get instructions from her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing together with its legal representative and witnesses and were available to provide its evidence in relation to the complaints. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As part of my investigation, I am obliged to hold a hearing. I am satisfied that the complainant’s solicitor was notified of the arrangements for the hearing. At the hearing, I requested the complainant’s legal representative to provide evidence in relation to the complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing at the earliest opportunity but no later 1 week after the hearing date. Subsequent to this, I received documentation from the complainant’s legal representative. Having carefully examined same, I find that the complainant has not provided a reasonable or adequate explanation for her non-attendance at the hearing on 10 May 2022. In the circumstances, I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant. |
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.
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.
CA-00043297-001 Based on the circumstances outlined above and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I conclude that this complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00043297-002 Based on the circumstances outlined above and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I conclude that the complainant was not discriminated against pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts. CA-00043297-003 Based on the circumstances outlined above and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I conclude that this complaint is not well-founded.
|
Dated: 1st June 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Key Words:
Non- attendance at hearing |