ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037063
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Camile Stapait | Paulo Ribeiro's Limited T/A Wasabi Bar and Grill |
Representatives | Self-represented | Self-represented |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00048342-001 | 25/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00048342-002 | 25/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00048342-004 | 25/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00048342-005 | 25/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00048342-006 | 25/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00048342-007 | 25/01/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 25th January 2022, the complainant referred these complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission. Other complaints were made and are addressed in ADJ-00037717 and ADJ-00037021. They are duplicate claims as this employment ended in December 2021. The evidence, findings and awards are made in ADJ-00037717.
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2021following 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The evidence of the complainant is set out in ADJ-00037717. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The evidence of the respondent is set out in ADJ-00037717. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The findings in relation to each of these complaints is contained in ADJ-00037717. I formally find that the complaints in ADJ-00037063 are not well-founded as duplicate claims. |
Decisions:
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 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2021 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00048342-001 I decide that this complaint pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is not well-founded as a duplicate claim. CA-00048342-002 I decide that this complaint pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is not well-founded as a duplicate claim. CA-00048342-004 I decide that this complaint pursuant to the Employment Equality Act is not well-founded as a duplicate claim. CA-00048342-005 I decide that this complaint pursuant to the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act is not well-founded as a duplicate claim. CA-00048342-006 I decide that this complaint pursuant to the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act is not well-founded as a duplicate claim. CA-00048342-007 I decide that this complaint pursuant to the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act is not well-founded as a duplicate claim. |
Dated: 12/07/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Duplicate claims |