ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037176

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Kateryna Stepanova	Mainline Links Limited

Representatives

Kevin Neary, Donnelly Neary & Donnelly 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-00048452-002	03/02/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00048452-003	03/02/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00048452-004	03/02/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00048453-002	03/02/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00048453-003	03/02/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00048453-004	03/02/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/10/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant did not attend the hearing of these matters.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant did not attend the hearing of these matters

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent submitted that the payments referred to in the complaint forms have already been paid over to the complainant.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant did not attend the hearing of these matters. She indicated in advance of the hearing that she had changed address and had only received notification of the hearing when she received the email invitation. She indicated that she would not be attending the hearing. The complainant was informed in advance of the hearing that she could apply for a postponement, however no application for a postponement was received.

The complainant was allowed a fifteen-minute window before the hearing started but made no attempts to access the hearing.

Having regard to the all the written and oral submissions in relation to these matters, I find that these matters are not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

My decision in relation to these matters is that the complaints are not well founded.

Dated: 21st October 2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Key Words:

Payment of Wages – No show - not well founded.