ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037569
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Stephen Walsh | Pat The Baker |
Representatives |
| Michael McGrath IBEC |
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-00048871-001 | 28/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00048871-002 | 28/02/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Three witnesses and a representative on behalf of the respondent were present at the hearing. The compliant did not attend the hearing of this matter. I waited 15 minutes to allow the complainant to attend, however he did not do so. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter. The complainant wrote to the WRC seeking an adjournment the day before the hearing and was informed that he would have to attend the hearing to seek an adjournment directly from the adjudicator. The complainant did not attend the hearing but sent in an email on the morning of the hearing indicating that he would not be in attendance and indicating three reasons why an adjournment should be granted – · that he wished to respond in writing to the respondent submissions received two days before the hearing, · that he understood that the respondent was not going to attend so he cancelled his annual leave and would be working for the day, and · that since the respondent was going to be represented, he would also look into being represented. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Three witnesses and a representative attended the hearing from the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I noted the following upon receipt of the complainant’s email: · that he had received the respondents written submissions ten months prior to the hearing and the recent respondent submission was a restatement of those submissions · that the complainant was specifically advised by the staff of the WRC to present himself at the hearing to seek any adjournment, and · the complainant was aware for at least ten months that the respondent had representation. The complainant was not present at the assigned start time, as customary, I gave the complainant an additional fifteen minutes to attend the hearing or notify the WRC of possibility difficulties in accessing the hearing. The complainant did not attend or contact the WRC during that time and I proceeded to open the hearing. As the complainant did not attend the hearing of these matters, I cannot find in his favour in relation to any of the complaints put forward. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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-00048771-001 As the complainant did not attend the hearing of these matters to outline his complaint, my decision is that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00048771-002 As the complainant did not attend the hearing of these matters to outline his complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Dated: 30-01-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – nonattendance – not well founded - Unfair Dismissal - nonattendance – not unfairly dismissed |