Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mark  Sutton

Component Distributors C.D.

Representatives

  No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant

Eibhín Stapleton,  Ronan Daly Jermyn

Act

Complaint 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-00053873-001

24/11/2022

On 24 November 2022, the Complainant introduced two complaints to the WRC under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

On 8 June 2023, the parties were invited to hearing in Cork on 24 July 2023 at 10.30 am. On that day, the Respondent came on record as being represented by Ronan Daly Jermyn Solicitors.

On 19 July 2023, the Respondent filed an outline submission in the claim, which was shared with the complainant .

The WRC  also shared this with the Complainant, in preparation for hearing.

The Complainant did not file a response or attend the hearing.

On the complaint form, filed on 24 November 2022, the Complainant introduced himself as a Warehouse Operative who had worked at the Respondent business from April 5, 2022, to 28 September 2022, on a full-time basis.

His case arose from his contention that he had not been provided with a contract of employment.

CA-00053873-001 

The Complainant wrote that he had not received a statement in writing on his terms of employment.

CA-00053873-002

The Complainant wrote that he had not received a statement of his core terms in writing under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

On 20 January 2023, the complainant was requested to clarify the content of the second complaint and responded without clarifying this incomplete complaint .

The Complainant did not furnish a response to the Respondent submission. He did not make an appearance at hearing or give any explanation or excuse for this nonappearance.

The Respondent operates an automotive replacement products business.

The Respondent filed a comprehensive submission in response to both claims and rejected the complaints in their entirety.

It was the Respondent case that the complainant commenced work on 5 April 2022 and concluded during the probationary period on 28 September 2022.

The Respondent outlined that the Complainant had been issued with his terms of employment on 10 June 2022, which had been retained, but not returned by the Complainant. 

CA-00053873-001 The Respondent outlined that the Complainant had been issued with his terms of employment on 10 June 2022, which had been retained, but not returned by the Complainant. 

CA-00053873-002

 The Respondent was not on notice of this complaint as it was deemed incomplete at source .

At hearing, Ms Stapleton was accompanied by Ms Smyth, HR Manager.

Ms Stapleton confirmed that the submission had been shared with the Complainant prehearing.

She also confirmed that efforts had been extended to contact the complainant by phone pre hearing , but these had been unsuccessful.

I have been requested to reach a  decision in respect of the complaint  lodged on 24 November 2022.

In arriving at my decision, I have read the complainants submission of complaints. I have also read the Respondent submission.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was on proper notice of hearing and of the submission tendered by the Complainant. There was no bounce back from the email contact details forwarded by the complainant to WRC.

This address was the same address relied on by the Complainant when he was requested to clarify the trajectory intended for CA-00053873-002 in January 2023. This complaint was deemed incomplete .

I must conclude that the Complainant is a no show in his own case, and I must add that I find that unreasonable.

Section 40(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015,  sets out the pathway of a submitted complaint before the WRC.

(5) (a) An adjudication officer to whom a complaint or dispute is referred under this section shall—

(i) inquire into the complaint or dispute,

(ii) give the parties to the complaint or dispute an opportunity to—

(I) be heard by the adjudication officer, and

(II) present to the adjudication officer any evidence relevant to the complaint or dispute,

(iii) make a decision in relation to the complaint or dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provision, and

(iv) give the parties to the complaint or dispute a copy of that decision in writing.

(b) In this subsection “relevant redress provision” means—

(i) in relation to a complaint under this section of a contravention of a provision of an enactment specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 5 the provision of that enactment specified in Part 1 of Schedule 6,

(ii) in relation to a dispute as to the entitlements of an employee under an enactment specified in Part 3 of Schedule 5, the provision of that enactment specified in Part 1 of Schedule 6, and

(iii) in relation to a complaint under subsection (3), paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 2012.

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was provided with a hearing and an opportunity to present evidence in his case.

I have found huis nonappearance to be unreasonable.

Perhaps, it is the case that life has changed for the complainant from the moment in which he made the complaint in November 2022.? Perhaps, he has moved on and got new work?

If that is the case, it would have been of benefit to me if the complainant had responded in that vein when he received the invitation to hearing by way of an RSVP.

I have found the silence following the notification of hearing, followed by the nonappearance at hearing to be short of best practice.

To reach a decision in this complaint  and in the face of that  complaint, I required the complainant to give evidence in his own case.

The Complainant did not make himself available to give evidence in his own case. The Respondent has disputed the complaint .

I have waited five days post hearing,  just in case the complainant submitted an explanation or excuse for his nonappearance at hearing.

The Complainant has not contacted the WRC during this period.

CA-00053873-001 

The Complainant did not attend the hearing to give evidence in this complaint. I find the complaint is not well founded.

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.

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of that Act.

CA-00053873-001 

The Complainant did not attend the hearing to give evidence in this complaint. I find the complaint is not well founded.

Statement of Terms of Employment