ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031178

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Derek Rossel	Hines Real Estate Ireland Limited

Representatives

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.

HR DUO

Mr Gareth Kyne

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00041578-001	16/12/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/01/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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. In the instant case there was only one party 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 Mr Derek Rossel as “the Complainant” and to Hines Real Estate Ireland Limited as “the Respondent”.

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the Hearing. The Respondent was represented by Mr Gareth Kyne of HR Duo. Also in attendance from the Respondent company were Ms Nicola Burke, Mr Brian Glynn and Mr Brian Moran, Senior Managing Director, Hines Real Estate Ireland Limited.

Background:

The Complainant referred a claim to the WRC on 16/12/2020 alleging he was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent rejects this allegation.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant failed to attend a hearing of the case scheduled to take place in person in Lansdowne House on 27/01/2023.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent’s Senior Managing Director together with two other senior members of staff attended and were represented. They were prepared to give evidence in defence of the complaint on behalf of the Respondent and in accordance with their written submissions and accompanying documentation.

The Respondent’s representative applied to have the case dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and struck out for want of prosecution.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00041578-001

The within complaint alleging unfair dismissal was received by the WRC on 16/12/2020. This complaint was referred to me for investigation and a hearing for that purpose was arranged for 27/01/23 at 12.30 in Lansdowne House. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.

The within complaint had been the subject of three postponements thus far. Parties were notified of the date of this scheduled hearing on 12/12/2022 and there were two further applications for postponement make by the Complainant in the intervening period both of which were not granted by the WRC. The Complainant emailed the WRC on the morning of the hearing requesting the Adjudication Officer review his application for postponement.

I considered the application for an adjournment on the morning of the hearing with due regard to the rights of both parties to fair procedures and through the lens of the “exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons” test that must be satisfied by a complainant for an adjournment to be granted on the day of a hearing. I am also obliged to consider the potential impact on the other party and the potential impact on efficient and effective use of the resources of the WRC.

The Complainant stated in his email of the morning of Friday 27 January that he is working in Saudi Arabia, and it was “physically not possible” for him to attend the hearing. I gave his email application for an adjournment my utmost consideration when it was brought to my attention on the morning of Friday 27 January 2023. I find the Complainant was notified of the date of this current hearing on 12 December 2022. I am satisfied said notification provided the Complainant with almost seven weeks during which to plan to attend the hearing to present his case in person. If the Complainant did not wish to travel to present his case in person, he could have requested a remote hearing or indeed he could have requested to present his case via video link in a hybrid hearing. I am satisfied the Complainant is familiar with the practice of remote hearings as two previous scheduled hearings of this case, subsequently postponed, on 21 June 2021 and 2 March 2022 respectively were due to be held remotely and parties were advised accordingly at the time.

The Complainant had twice applied for a postponement in relation to this specific scheduled hearing and both applications had been refused by the WRC. On the day of the hearing the Complainant failed to attend and the same application for adjournment based on the same set of facts were presented by email for the attention of the Adjudication Officer. No other reasons were offered for the Complainant’s failure to attend the scheduled hearing. There were no additional exceptional circumstances or substantial reasons. I acknowledge the Complainant was in Saudi Arabia, but I am satisfied this was not an exceptional circumstance or substantial reason suddenly presenting on the day. I find the Complainant did not meet the specific conditions for the granting an adjournment on the day of the hearing.

In the circumstances where the Complainant did not attend the hearing 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 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

For the reasons set out above, I find that complaint CA-00041578-001 is not well-founded.

Dated: 21/02/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Key Words:

Complainant adjournment request by email; day of hearing;