ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032931

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Roisin Weafer	Irish Family Planning Association

Representatives

MP Guinness, BL instructed by Paul Cahill CC Solicitors

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00043599-001	14/04/2021
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00043599-002	14/04/2021
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00043599-003	14/04/2021
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00043599-004	14/04/2021

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/05/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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 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).

The parties were advised by the WRC in a letter confirming details of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were also advised in that letter that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.

Background:

The complainant was employed as a receptionist with the respondent from 14/11/2014 until she was dismissed on 30/10/2020 as a result of “persistent and unwarranted absenteeism”. The complainant submitted a number of complaints to the WRC on 14/04/2021. A hearing was scheduled to take place on 18/05/2022. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant. The respondent’s representatives, legal team and witnesses attended.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent’s representatives, legal team and witnesses attended the hearing. The respondent also provided a written submission, and booklet of appendices in advance of the hearing and were prepared to defend all the complaints submitted by the complainant.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant submitted a total of four complaints to the WRC on 14/04/2021 at 23.59.21. These complaints [CA-00043599-001; CA-00043599-002; CA-00043599-003; CA-00043599-004] were acknowledged by the WRC on 14/04/2021 by e mail. The complainant sent further documentation to the WRC on 12/05/2021 and these were acknowledged and copied to the respondent. The complainant and the respondent were advised of the date, time and location of the hearing on 20/4/2022. Details of postponement process and postponement request form were included in this notice. There was no application for a postponement received and the case officer did not receive any “bounce back” from the e mail that was sent.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant on the day of the hearing. Out of an abundance of caution I delayed the hearing for a period of 30 minutes. During that time, I checked with the reception staff on three occasions to clarify if the complainant had arrived. There was no attendance or contact from the complainant or a representative on her behalf.

Following the hearing I waited for a period of two weeks and note that there was no contact from the complainant to explain her non-attendance at the hearing.

I am satisfied that the complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 20/04/2022 advising her of the date and time of the hearing.

As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing to pursue these complaints and/or give evidence in relation to these complaints I conclude that the four complaints [CA-00043599-001; CA-00043599-002; CA-00043599-003; CA-00043599-004] submitted by the complainant are not well founded.

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 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.

As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing to pursue these complaints and/or give evidence in relation to these complaints I decide that these complaints are not well founded.

Dated: 02nd June 2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Non attendance