ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044319
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jorge Bo Smid | Seamus Daly Shamrock Access |
Representatives | The Complainant did not attend the hearing. | Self-Represented |
Complaint:
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-00055171-001 | 18/02/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/07/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991following 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. In the instant case, there was one party only as the Complainant did not attend. The hearing was scheduled to be conducted in person in Lansdowne House.
While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Jorge Bo Smid as “the Complainant” and to Seamus Daly as “the Respondent”.
Background:
These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 18/02/2023. The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 28/07/2023.
Having waited a reasonable period of the time on the day, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I am satisfied the Complainant was duly notified of the details of the hearing. The Complainant did not attend. A postponement had not been sought.
Attempts were made on the day to contact the Complainant on the mobile phone number provided by him on the WRC complaint form and it was unequivocally clear from the conversation that took place with the Complainant when contact was made with him that he had absolutely no intention of attending the hearing of his complaint.
The Complainant has not availed himself of the considerable resources put at his disposal by the WRC. The Complainant has wasted the time and money of the Respondent.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended the hearing to refute the claim and he was fully prepared to defend the within complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the Complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter, no evidence was presented to me in support of this claim. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00055171-001 For the reasons stated above, I decide this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 16/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
No show complainant; |