ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034698
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | John McDonnell | Solo Logistics Ltd Aztec Logistics |
Representatives | SiobhanHarbour | Anna Butler Peninsula Group Limited |
Complaints:
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-00045577-001 | 07/08/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00045578-001 | 07/08/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015 following 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.
The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Parties in attendance were advised that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that this hearing before the Workplace Relations Commission would be held in public and that this decision would not be anonymised and there was no objection to same. This decision can be read in conjunction with ADJ-00034172.
No evidence was given by the complainant as he did not attend. Evidence was given under oath/affirmation for the respondent by Mr Fintan Lawlor and Ms Edel Lawlor and cross examination permitted.
Background:
The complainant’s representative attended the hearing, but the complainant did not. The complainant representative advised the complainant would not be attending and that it was the complainant’s understanding that he did not have to attend. The complainant’s representative advised that they were not seeking an adjournment of the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00045577-001
The complainant’s representative advised that this complaint was withdrawn. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00045578-001
The complainant did not attend the hearing. The complainant’s representative who did attend the hearing, submitted the complainant would not be attending and that it was the complainant’s understanding that he did not have to attend. The complainant’s representative advised that they were not seeking an adjournment of the hearing. It was submitted on the complaint form that the complainant did not know his hours of work and that this was in breach of the legislation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00045578-001
The respondent submitted that the complainant had submitted his complaint on 7th August 2021 and that during the cognisable period 8th February 2021 until 7th August 2021 the complainant had been out on leave and therefore, no breach occurred during the cognisable period. Evidence given by Mr Fintan Lawlor included that the complainant had been out on health leave during covid as he suffered with a health condition. A medical cert had been submitted and Mr Lawlor was surprised at the claims as he thought he had a good relationship with the complainant. Under cross examination Mr Lawlor confirmed that he knew the complainant had a health condition and that the complainant removed himself from employment with the respondent on the Revenue system and sent in a letter of resignation. Evidence given by Ms Edel Lawlor included that she observed the complainant working elsewhere on 28th May 2021 and shortly afterwards she noticed he had ceased his employment on revenue and sent in his letter of resignation after that. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00045578-001
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 07/08/21 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 9th May 2022 and there was no appearance by the complainant. The complainant’s representative did attend and submitted that the complainant did not think he had to attend. The complainant’s representative confirmed that the complainant was not seeking an adjournment. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend. Section 17 sets out “provision of information in relation to working time” including …1) If neither the contract of employment of the employee concerned nor any employment regulation order, registered employment agreement or collective agreement that has effect in relation to the employee specifies the normal or regular starting and finishing times of work of an employee, the employee’s employer shall notify the employee, subject to subsection (3), at least 24 hours before the first day or, as the case may be, the day, in each week that he or she proposes to require the employee to work, of the times at which the employee will normally be required to start and finish work on each day, or, as the case may be, the day or days concerned, of that week. In reaching my conclusion I have carefully evaluated the evidence adduced and taken account submissions made. The respondent submits that the complainant was on sick leave during the cognisable period and the complainant did not attend and did not give any evidence to support his complaint. In all the circumstances, I find 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 complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00045577-001 This complaint was withdrawn. CA-00045578-001 I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: September 6th 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Working hours, complainant did not attend |