ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039250
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Steven O'Toole | Eir |
Representatives | The complainant did not attend the hearing | Jacqueline Ho, Legal Counsel, Eir Group |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00050537-001 | 06/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00050537-002 | 06/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00050537-003 | 06/05/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, these complaints were assigned to me for adjudication by the Director General. A remote hearing was arranged for 10.00am on March 21st 2023, for the parties to present evidence in relation to the complaints; however, the complainant, Mr Steven O’Toole, did not attend, although he had confirmed by email on Thursday, March 16th, that he would attend. Shortly after 10.00am on the day of the hearing, the case officer phoned Mr O’Toole, but he did not answer the call. At 10.20am, I concluded the hearing.
The respondent, Eir, was represented by their Legal Counsel, Ms Jacqueline Ho. Also in attendance was the Regional Development Manager, Ms Caitríona Donegan, a HR Business Partner, Ms Sinéad O’Sullivan and a HR Generalist, Ms Eimear White.
At the opening of the hearing, it was established that the complainant was employed by Meteor Mobile Communications Limited, and that he submitted the same complaints against that company, (reference ADJ-00039251) as he has submitted here against Eir.
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.
I have established that the respondent named in these complaints was not the complainant’s employer, and that he was employed by a different entity against which a separate hearing has been scheduled. On this basis, I have decided that these complaints are not well founded. |
Dated: 4th April 2023.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Incorrect respondent has been named |