ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031571
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Sales Manager | Company |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00042132-001 | 25/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/10/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
Having confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and having conducted an investigation into the said trade dispute as described in Section 13, I, as the so appointed Adjudication Officer, am bound to make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.
Where applicable, this investigation may involve an assessment of whether processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practise on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000).
It is noted that the Complainant herein is alleging that fair procedures were not followed and that she was unfairly dismissed. It is further noted that the complainant has less than one year of service with the Employer. In such circumstances, Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 allows the worker to refer the dismissal to the WRC as a dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts.
Background:
The complaint issued by way of workplace relations complaint form dated the 25th of January 2021. The Complainant says that she was summarily dismissed in the course of her probation period because she had raised queries in relation to her allowances and expenses. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date time and venue for the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend, and I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date time and venue of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Neither party attended the hearing. I am satisfied that both of the parties were notified of the date, time and place of the hearing on the 5th of August 2022. Neither party contacted the WRC to indicate they would not be attending before the hearing. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts CA-00042132-001 – I make no recommendation in circumstances where the facts of the dispute between the parties have not been opened to me.
|
Dated: 2nd November 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|