ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00042333
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Former Employee | A Business |
Representatives |
| Roisin O'Brien Vincent & Beatty LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00035703-001 | 03/04/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/03/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015-2021] and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969,following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and present any relevant evidence. This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The adjudication hearing commenced on 10/1/21, was adjourned that day and resumed and concluded on 7/3/22. The Complainant did not attend on either day. The Respondent was in attendance on both days and was represented by Ms Lorna Lynch BL instructed by Vincent & Beatty Solicitors. In addition various personnel attended on behalf of the Respondent including its in-house legal representative.
All submissions and documentation received by me has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The complaint was submitted to the WRC on the 3rd April, 2020. I have noted there were various exchanges between the Complainant and the WRC following submission of the complaint. In that regard, the Complainant informed the WRC that he could not participate in the remote adjudication hearing or face the Respondent due to his concerns about the impact on his mental health. I noted that in response the WRC had explained the process of adjudication including remotely and had informed the Complainant that his representative could speak with him in the course of the adjudication hearing and that he could have a family member or friend in attendance for moral support. The WRC had also advised the Complainant of the postponement procedures and that if necessary, he could seek a postponement for medical reasons. In addition, the WRC requested the Complainant to clarify how he intended to engage with the adjudication process and to identify his requirements in that regard so that I could evaluate what accommodations could be implemented to allow the case to proceed. The WRC advised the Complainant that documentation from a doctor should be provided in support of his requirements.
I noted that the Complainant did not identify any requirements or special facilities for the purpose of participating in the remote adjudication hearing and nor did he provide any medical evidence in that regard. Furthermore, I checked the file and was satisfied the WRC had issued the Complainant prior written notification of the dates and times of the adjudication hearing and that he was sent the webex details for remote access.
In all the circumstances and having waited approximately ten minutes to start the resumed hearing on the 7th March 2022, I decided to proceed with the adjudication hearing as scheduled. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00035703-001 The Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing. The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 10/6/2019 and his employment was terminated with effect from 5 March 2020. On his Complaint Form, the Complainant ticked that he was unfairly dismissed and that he did not have at least 12 months service. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00035703-001 The Respondent stated that the Complainant had not put forward any evidence to ground his dispute pursuant to the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 and that the onus was on him to do so. The Respondent stated that it treated the Complainant fairly at all times and that it made significant efforts to support him throughout his employment. The Respondent stated that its reasons for dismissal were reasonable. In that regard, the Respondent cited the following as reasons for the Complainant's dismissal – ie the Complainant’s previous disciplinary record, his failure to attend work since 23 December 2019, his repeated uncertified and unauthorised absences which the Respondent stated was having an effect on its business and the Complainant's failure to contact management when required and attend meetings. The Respondent further stated that in its dismissal letter to the Complainant of the 5th March 2020, the Complainant was offered a right to appeal the dismissal decision but that he declined to do so. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A Complaint Form was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on 3/4/2020 which referred a dispute pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969. The said dispute was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 10/1/22 and 7/3/22 and there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I am satisfied that the said Complainant was properly notified in writing of the date, time and arrangements for the adjudication hearing and that he did not attend. In the circumstances where the Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing, and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been submitted, I make the below recommendation. |
Recommendation:
CA-00035703-001 Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. For the reasons outlined I do not recommend in favour of the worker/Complainant. |
Dated: 25th November 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal |