ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046957
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Morgan Donnelly | Boylesports |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | No Appearance | Jackie Lawlor |
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-00057900-001 | 25/07/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
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.
This matter was heard by way of a remote hearing on the 23rd November 2023 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I received and reviewed the Complainant’s WRC complainant form and the written submissions and documentation from the Respondent prior to the hearing.
At the time the hearing was to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I verified that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing and waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. The Complainant was contacted by the WRC by telephone however there was no answer. The Complainant did not attend and I opened the hearing. The Respondent was in attendance and was represented by Jackie Lawlor, Senior People Advisor. Deborah McGee, the Respondent’s Group Payroll Director was also in attendance to give evidence on behalf of the Respondent.
Background:
The Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC on the 25th July 2023 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Respondent disputed that there was an unlaw deduction from the Complainant’s wages. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing to advance that a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 had taken place. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted a full defence to the Complainant’s complaint and attended the hearing and was prepared to present evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In making these findings, I have considered the submissions made at the hearing as well as the documentation submitted by the parties in advance of the hearing. At the time the hearing was to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I verified that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing and waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. The Complainant was contacted by the WRC by telephone however there was no answer. The Complainant did not attend the hearing to advance that a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 had taken place. The Respondent submitted written submissions in advance of the hearing which contained a full defence to the Complainant’s complaint. Taking into consideration the foregoing I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
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.
I decide that the complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is not well-founded. |
Dated: 18/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Key Words:
No appearance – Complaint not well-founded |