ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035943

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Tamara Shannan	Cpl Solutions Limited

Representatives

Claire Bruton BL,

Colleen Cleary Solr.,

CC Solicitors.

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00047137-001	12/11/2021

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/09/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 (1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 (as substituted) and where a claim for redress under the Unfair Dismissals legislation is being made, the claim is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers any such claim to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said claim heard in the manner prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. In particular, the said Adjudication Officer is obliged to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. 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.

In circumstances where the fact of dismissal is not in issue, the evidential burden of truth rests with the Respondent. Per Section 6(6) of the 1977 Act, in determining for the purposes of the Acts whether or not a dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or other of the specified grounds (as outlined in the Act – conduct, redundancy etc.), or that there were other substantial reasons justifying the dismissal.

An Adjudication Officer must, in determining if a dismissal is unfair, have regard to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal (per Section 7).

In this particular instance, and in circumstances where the Complainant herein has referred a complaint of having been unfairly dismissed form her place of employment wherein she had worked for in excess of one year and where the Workplace Relations Complaint Form (dated the 12th of November 2021) issued within six months of his dismissal, I am satisfied that I (an Adjudication Officer so appointed) have jurisdiction to hear the within matter.

Where an employee has been dismissed and the dismissal is found to be unfair the employee shall be entitled to redress pursuant to Section 7 of the 1977 Act. Such redress might include re-instatement, re-engagement or compensation for any financial loss attributable to the dismissal where compensation for such loss does not exceed 104 weeks remuneration. The acts, omissions and conduct of both parties will be taken into account when considering the extent of the financial loss and there is an onus on a Complainant to adopt measures to mitigate the financial/ remunerative loss (which includes actual loss as well as estimated prospective loss).

Background:

The Complainant initiated this complaint by way of Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 12th of November 2021. The Complainant says she was Unfairly Dismissed when the sanction of dismissal was applied at the end of an Investigative and disciplinary process. Details of the Complaint are outlined in the said Workplace Relations Complaint Form.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not present herself at the hearing.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent attended with legal representation and three witnesses. The Respondent was in a position to fully defend the claim of Unfair Dismissal.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the hearing date having been informed of same on the 30th of June 2022.

The Complainant wrote to the WRC on the 23rd of August stating:

“I would like a postponement of the hearing on the 1st of September to a future date as I had to travel for family emergency. Please see attached documents.”

The Complainant failed to provide documentation establishing the fact of a family emergency. The Complainant also failed to provide information or documentation (such as flight details) which might demonstrate that she had in fact already travelled.

The Complainant did provide flight details of a booked flight for the 11th of September – some ten days after the proposed hearing date.

The application for a postponement was, in the circumstances, formally refused on the 30th of August 2022.

On the morning of the hearing, the Respondent provided me with an email received that day by their instructed Solicitor. The Complainant notes in the email that she won’t be attending as she was “outside the country for family emergency”.

As the Adjudicator assigned to this matter, I confirm I tried to contact the complainant by telephone but failed to connect as the customer was described as “unavailable”.

The Respondent sought a dismissal of the within complaint.

On balance I find that the Complainant has failed to satisfactorily provide the WRC and the Respondent with verifiable proof of her unavailability and or some other verification of an unavoidable emergency. The Complainant has not availed of the considerable resources put at her disposal by the WRC. The Complainant has additionally wasted the time and money of the Respondent. In the circumstances I am dismissing the Complaint.

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 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00047137-001 – I dismiss the within Complaint of Unfair Dismissal

Dated: 19-09-2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: