ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039895
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | James Cuffe | Roadbridge Civil Engineering & Building Contractors Roadbridge Ltd., |
Representatives | SIPTU |
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00052161-001 | 09/08/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00052161-002 | 09/08/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/11/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 complaint arises under the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 and the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and, in respect of the first complaint, is a claim for the application of Irish legal entitlement to the complainant. This is one of a number of similar complaints made on behalf of a group of workers, who had been employed by Roadbridge Civil Engineering & Building ContractorsbasedinIrelandforseveralyears. The company went into receivership and these workers were then made redundant without notice on 28th April 2022 and were paid the statutory entitlement under the UK legislation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing or provide any explanation for the failure to do so. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging breaches of the above statutes and was referred to me for investigation. There was no appearance by the complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the complainant was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. While the complaint is very similar in many respects to others which were heard on the day, and the complainant was represented at the hearing by his union, the sums involved are relatively significant and the requirement to hear formal evidence necessitates a personal appearance by a complainant in order to hear that evidence. It is not open to an adjudicator to determine a matter as a sort of collective complaint; each person making a complaint under an employment rights statute must attend and give individual evidence to ground their complaint. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been formally adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
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 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
For the reasons set out above complaints CA-00052161-001 and 002 are not well founded |
Dated: 26/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
No Show by complainant. |