ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039097
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Igors Reinis | Audrius Vinslauskas |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Igors Reinis | Audrius Vinlauskas |
Representatives | No show | No Show |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00051022-001 | 05/06/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
Background:
The Complainant alleged that he was entitled to payment of notice: did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice of termination of my employment |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A hearing was arranged so that the complaint could be investigated. The Complainant failed to attend. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was notified of the hearing and failed to attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant consented to be contacted by email. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and place of the hearing and failed to attend. As no evidence has been heard and the Complainant has failed to attend at the hearing, I dismiss the complaint. |
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 42 provides that a complaint can be dismissed if an Adjudicator forms the opinion that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious.
Section 42 of the Act states: 42. (1) An adjudication officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint or dispute referred to him or her under section 41 if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious. These are legal terms and have a meaning as defined by the superior courts. The matter before me is not frivolous or made in bad faith as understood generally; however, it is legally misconceived in the absence of any evidence. Vexatious and frivolous are legal technical terms and as explained in Delaney and McGrath on Civil Procedure 4th Edition 2018 mean: The meaning of the words “frivolous or vexatious” as used in the context of s.10(1)(b)(ii) of the Data Protection Act 1988 as amended was considered by Birmingham J in Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner,28 where he stated that “frivolous, in this context does not mean only foolish or silly, but rather a complaint that was futile, or misconceived or hopeless in the sense that it was incapable of achieving the desired outcome.” This description was referred to by Irvine J in her judgment in the Court of Appeal in Fox v McDonald,29 where she stated that “the word ‘frivolous’ when used in the context of O. 19 r, 28 is usually deployed to describe proceedings which the court feels compelled to terminate because their continued existence cannot be justified having regard to the relevant circumstance.” In the absence of the Complainant giving oral evidence and failing to attend at the hearing, I am compelled to terminate the proceedings and dismiss the Complaint as provided for under section 42 of the Act. |
Dated: 31st January 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No show-dismiss complaint. |