ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00040502
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Maciej Lemiesz | Arvato Scm Ireland |
Representatives |
| Aleksandra Tiilikainen of IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00051894-001 | 27/07/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 1 July 2010 as a Logistics Operator.
He submitted the above complaint on 27th of July 2022. A hearing was held to consider the matter in Lansdowne House at 11am on the 27th of March 2023.
I attended the hearing at 11am, the Complainant was not present, the Respondent attended the hearing represented by Ms Tiilikainen of IBEC. I then adjourned the hearing while I attempted to get in touch with the Complainant. I was not able to so.
I waited until 11.30am and closed the hearing.
I waited a further week before drafting this decision to give the Complainant an opportunity notify the WRC of any emergency which kept him from attending.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
In July 2019 the Complainant was issued with a verbal warning for inappropriate comments and emails directed towards his manager and his work colleagues.
In September 2019 the complainant was also issued with a written warning for failing to communicate his absence and being absent without authorization.
The Complainant was again absent on sick leave between 18th October and 16th December. On his return to the workplace, the complainant submitted a grievance.
While the substance of the grievance was not upheld as part of the grievance outcome process the Complainant agreed to a move to work in a different department.
In January 2020 the Respondent announced the closure of their Balbriggan site and consolidation of the staff there into their Sword sites by July 2020. Between 7th January and February 2020, the Complainant attended his new workplace location in Swords and then was absent due to sick leave and annual leave up until August 2020 when he commenced carer's leave.
This leave lasted for 104 weeks up until August 2022. The Complainant has not returned to the workplace after the end of carer’s leave and has provided no sick certs covering his absence.
The Complainant resigned from his employment without serving notice on 14 February 2023. At no time during the Complainant’s employment was he penalised in any way by the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On review of the file I can see that the Complainant provided an email address to the WRC. The Complainant agreed on his complaint form that the WRC could contact him using that address. The WRC notified the Complainant about this hearing by way of a notification letter sent to that email address. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the hearing but failed to attend. As such I am of the view that his complaint must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the above complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 12th April 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|