ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031862
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ruth Callan | General Paints Limited |
Representatives | Sarah Comiskey Comiskey Solicitors | Mark Comerford IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00042404-001 | 10/02/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00042404-002 | 10/02/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00042404-003 | 10/02/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/12/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
Background:
The Complainant at short notice applied for the hearing to be postponed arising from both the client and counsel instructed to present the case being unable to attend the hearing. The Complainant solicitor was advised to make an application at the scheduled hearing for a postponement/adjournment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant at the scheduled hearing held on the 14th December 2022 stated that both the counsel instructed to present the case and also her client were unable to be present at the remote hearing as they were unwell. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that they were ready to present their case, they had finalised their written submission and the asked they tribunal to note that no written submission had been received from the Complainant. They asked that the case against them be dismissed as no case was being made out and no reasons based on evidence to delay the hearing was provided to the tribunal. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant was requested to submit medical certificates and to forward their written submission by close of business on Friday 16th December 2022. In correspondence this was confirmed to the Complainant. No documentation was submitted. In the absence of any evidence to ground the application for an adjournment based on an exceptional reason, I must refuse the application for an adjournment for lack of evidence to ground such a request. The Respondent was ready to present their case and to rebut the allegations made by the Complainant. The Complainant did not attend at the hearing. As no evidence has been provided to explain her absence, I find that the Complainant has failed to make out her case and decide the following that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed and the complaints made under the Organisation Working Time Act 1997 are not well founded. CA-00042404-001 Claim for Unfair Dismissal: The Complainant failed to present her case and to attend at the hearing. The Respondent did attend and was ready to rebut the allegation made against them. In these circumstances I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. The complaint is not well founded. CA-00042404-002 Claim under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997: The Complainant failed to present her case and to attend at the hearing. The Respondent did attend and was ready to rebut the allegations made against them. In these circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00042404-003 Claim under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997: The Complainant failed to present her case and to attend at the hearing. The Respondent did attend and was ready to rebut the allegations made against them. In these circumstances 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(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
CA-00042404-001 Claim for Unfair Dismissal: The Complainant failed to present her case and to attend at the hearing. The Respondent did attend and was ready to rebut the allegation made against them. In these circumstances I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. The complaint is not well founded. CA-00042404-002 Claim under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997: The Complainant failed to present her case and to attend at the hearing. The Respondent did attend and was ready to rebut the allegations made against them. In these circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00042404-003 Claim under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997: The Complainant failed to present her case and to attend at the hearing. The Respondent did attend and was ready to rebut the allegations made against them. In these circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded.
|
Dated: 24/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No show |