ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043665
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Beatriz Cardoso Laoz | Deirdre A. Costelloe |
Representatives | No appearance | Deirdre A. Costelloe |
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-00053984-001 | 03/12/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00053984-003 | 03/12/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00053984-004 | 03/12/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00053984-005 | 03/12/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00053984-006 | 03/12/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/06/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael MacNamee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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:
The claims were listed for hearing at the offices of the Workplace Relations Commission, Lansdowne House, Dublin for 11 am on the 9th of June 2023. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. Ms. Deirdre Costelloe was present on behalf of the Respondent and was ready to proceed.
Both parties were notified of the time, date and venue of the adjudication hearing by letter dated the 4th of May 2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Ms. Deirdre Costello appeared on behalf of the Respondent having delivered a written response and documentation in relation to the Complainant’s claims prior to the date of the adjudication hearing. All of the claims were fully contested by the Respondent |
Findings and Conclusions:
As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant the Respondent has no case to answer in respect of any of the claims. Accordingly, the Payment of Wages Claims, the Claims made pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act are not well-founded and in respect of the claim under the Minimum Notice Act, I find that there was no contravention of that Act. |
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-00053984-001 Complaint under Section 6 Payment of Wages Act 1991 – Complaint not well-founded CA-00053984-003 Complaint under Section 6 Payment of Wages Act 1991 – Complaint not well-founded CA-00053984-004 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – Complaint not well-founded CA-00053984-005 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Complaint not well-founded CA-00053984-006 Complaint Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 – The Act was not contravened
|
Dated: 21st August, 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael MacNamee
Key Words:
Section 6 Payment of Wages Act 1991 - Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 – No appearance – Not well-founded – Act not contravened |