ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047903
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Michael Black | An Garda Síochána |
Representatives | Patrick Kennedy, PJ O'Meara & Company | Mr Stephen O’Sullivan BL, Chief State Solicitors Office |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00052952-001 | 23/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was a remote hearing. Both parties made submissions in advance of the hearing. Mr Kennedy attended the hearing on behalf of the complainant. The complainant did not attend the hearing.
Mr O’Sullivan attended on behalf of the respondent along with several witnesses.
Background:
The complainant submitted a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts which was received by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 23rd September 2022. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no appearance by the complainant to pursue his complaint and give direct evidence. The complainant’s representative, Mr Kennedy appeared on behalf of the complainant and confirmed the complainant would not be attending. He requested that as there were some legal issues, he be allowed to proceed even in the absence of the complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent and their representative, Mr O’Sullivan, appeared at the hearing. Mr O’Sullivan outlined that it was clear from the submissions that there were several issues in dispute. As these issues could only be dealt with through direct evidence, he requested the complaint be dismissed due to the absence of the complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent and complainant representatives made submissions to the WRC on 6th & 8th December 2023. Arising from the Supreme Court findings in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer & Ors [2021] IESC 24, when issues are in dispute evidence is given under oath or affirmation. The WRC guidance document allows for the submission of documentary evidence in advance of the hearing. The submission made consists of assertions on behalf of the complainant as to how his employment was terminated. This evidence was disputed by the respondents in their submission. Although documents are helpful to confirm facts, the strength of these written submissions are limited particularly when facts are in dispute. As the respondent’s representative was unable to hear direct evidence and cross examine the complainant on the disputed issues, there was no point in proceeding with the hearing on hearsay evidence. I find the complaint not well founded. For the reasons outlined, I decide to disallow the complainant’s appeal. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I find the complaint not well founded. I decide to disallow the complainant’s appeal. |
Dated: 13th December 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
No appearance |