ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00033054
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Aaron Barry | Communicorp Media |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00043741-001 | 25/04/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359 of 2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 1st February 2016. His employment terminated on 30th October 2020. He referred his complaint to the Director General of the WRC on 25th April 2021 alleging that he was unfairly dismissed. The parties were informed in writing on 14th January 2022 of the arrangements for the remote hearing scheduled on 17th February 2022 at 1pm. On 15th February 2022, an email was sent to the Complainant requesting details of the attendees on his behalf. A reply was received from the Complainant on 16th February 2022 confirming that he will attend the hearing on his own. On 17th February 2022 at 11.14am the Complainant sent an email to the WRC stating as follows: “Sincere apologies, but I will not be able to make this afternoon’s hearing due to an unforeseen personal emergency this morning. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience.” The WRC official attempted to contact the Complainant on the mobile number provided. As there was no reply, he left a voicemail. An email was also sent to the Complainant inquiring whether he wished to apply for a postponement or to withdraw his complaint. Further information in respect of the postponement application process was provided in the email. The Complainant was requested to submit his application for postponement as soon as possible, should he wish to apply for same. In excess of three weeks has elapsed since the day of the hearing until the decision in the within case was issued. There has been no further communication from the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was in attendance at the adjudication hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant failed to attend the adjudication hearing to adduce evidence in support of his claim. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the WRC on 25th April 2021 by the Complainant alleging that he was unfairly dismissed. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose for held on 17th February 2022. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the date and the time at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. |
Decision:
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.
Having regard to the above circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded and I decide accordingly. |
Dated: 21st March 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
No attendance – unfair dismissal |