ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035180
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gary Fitzgerald | Ripples Bathrooms |
Representatives | The Complainant did not attend the hearing. | The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
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-00046325-001 | 20/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/12/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 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.
While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Mr Gary Fitzgerald as “the Complainant” and to Ripples Bathrooms as “the Respondent”.
Background:
This matter came before the WRC dated 20/09/21 as a complaint submitted under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act. The Complainant was employed as a plasterer by the Respondent from 29/06/2020 until 14/09/2021. The Respondent carries on the business of bathroom installation. The Complainant was paid a monthly salary of €3,095.00 gross. He worked 40 hours per week. On the WRC complaint form, in respect of the “Unfair Dismissal Type” the complaint states “I was unfairly dismissed, I have at least 12 months service”.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the adjudication hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at the adjudication hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on 20/09/21 alleging unfair dismissal by the Respondent. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was arranged to be held in Lansdowne House on 12/12/2022. There was no appearance by either party at the hearing. I am satisfied the parties were informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. There was no application for a postponement submitted in the weeks or days preceding the hearing. I have waited the obligatory 5 days just in case either party contacted the WRC. I am satisfied that neither party made contact either immediately before the hearing, during the hearing or after the hearing. 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 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 decide that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 16th January 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
No attendance by both parties |