ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037648
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sarah McDonnell | Otro Ltd |
Representatives |
| Laura Reidy The Hr Suite |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00049033-001 | 02/03/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/11/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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 matter was heard by way of remote hearing 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.
The parties were advised by the WRC 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.
The remote hearing was scheduled for 10/11/2022. The respondent, its representatives and witnesses attended. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant.
I am satisfied that the complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 05/10/2022 advising her of the date and time of the hearing. Having reviewed the file I note that the complainant or her representative did not contact the WRC and the WRC concierge was unable to contact her prior to the hearing. In order to exercise a significant amount of caution I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close. There was no further communication received from or on behalf of the complainant to indicate that there were technical or other difficulties.
Background:
The complainant commenced employment on 16/11/2021 as a checkout operator with the respondent. She worked a 20-hour week and was paid €233.69 net. In her complaint form the complainant submitted that she did not receive a statement in writing on her terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant had submitted a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the remote hearing to pursue the complaint and/or give evidence. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s representatives and a number of witnesses attended the remote hearing on behalf of the respondent. They were prepared to give evidence in defence of the complaint on behalf of the respondent and in accordance with the written submissions. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the remote hearing to pursue the complaint and/or give evidence in relation to this complaint I conclude that the complaint is 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.
CA-00049033-001: Terms and Conditions of Employment: I find that this complaint is now well founded. |
Dated: 23rd November 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
No appearance. Terms and Conditions of Employment. Unfair dismissal |