Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michael Joseph  Carmody

DPPS DPPS

Representatives

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant   

 No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

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-00051195-001

15/06/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00051195-002

15/06/2022

On 15 June 2022, the Complainant raised the circumstances of a period of employment as a Carpenter with the WRC. He introduced himself as a lay litigant. The WRC requested some clarification on the claims.

The Respondent was then placed on notice of these complaints in October 2022 and consented to receive communication by email on 22 May 2023.

On 15 May 2023, the WRC invited both parties to an in person hearing in Cork. Neither party attended the hearing.

The Complainant submitted two complaints on 15 June 2022.

CA-00051195-001 Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant appears to have described his employment relationship as one of self-employment, which if validated would place him outside my jurisdiction in this claim.

He wrote on his complaint form that his employer had not paid him or had paid him less than the amount due to him for 7 days of employment (12-hour days) during March/April 2022.

I could not discern any further particulars of the claim.

CA-00051195-002 Industrial Relations Act, 1946

The Complainant wrote on his complaint form that he did not get a daily rest period as set out in the Employment Regulation Order. The ERO was not referenced.

I could not discern any further particulars for the claim.

CA-00051195-001 Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Respondent was on notice of the claim and did not file a defence or an appearance in the claim.

I have already detailed the approach made seeking to made direct contact with the complainant, which was unsuccessful.

CA-00051195-002 Industrial Relations Act, 1946

The Respondent was on notice of the claim and did not file a defence or an appearance in the claim.

I have already detailed the approach made seeking to made direct contact with the complainant, which was unsuccessful.

I am satisfied that both parties were on notice of both the complaints and the details of the hearing in this case.

I have found both parties nonappearances at hearing to be disrespectful to a Statutory body.

I believe that there was sufficient time following notification of hearing to address any concerns around attendance through postponements policy. This did not occur.

I have found non-appearance at hearing to be unreasonable.

I prepared for hearing with the aid of the complaint form, but without an outline of the claim or a defence in response.

On 26 June 2023, I commenced the hearing at the appointed time, only to find neither party in attendance. I had not received any reason or explanation for this. I concluded the hearing.

On conclusion of the hearing, I contacted our Central office to check whether any late entry reasons for nonattendance had been shared.

I discovered that the Respondent had made a late declaration that they would not be attending the hearing as the logistics of travel from their base to Cork was not feasible from a small business. They wrote that they had endeavoured to contact the complainant directly to seek to resolve the situation and remained open to that approach.  It appears that they may have made a late request to cancel the hearing outside of the postponement policy applicable at WRC.

In seeking to be reasonable and maximising my potential at first instance, I took this late declaration on board and wrote to the complainant. I am grateful to the Case Officer for his assistance with this.

I explained that I had held the hearing and offered a window of time for the parties to communicate. If the matter resolved before July 8, 2023, I requested that the matter be withdrawn.

I shared copies with both parties.

There was no response. As the Respondent had indicated that they were prepared to engage, I extended this time to July 17, 2023, but did not receive a response from the complainant.

I have, as a result, pressed on to conclude my decision in the case.

 CA-00051195-001 Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant did not attend the hearing to advance evidence in the case. I am unable to take the matter further.

I find the claim is not well founded.

CA-00051195-002 Industrial Relations Act, 1946

The Complainant did not attend the hearing to advance evidence in the case. I am unable to take the matter further.

I find the claim is not well founded.

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.

CA-00051195-001 Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with section 6 of   that Act.

I find the claim is not well founded.

CA-00051195-002 Industrial Relations Act, 1946

Section 45 A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, requires that I make a decision consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with the ERO applicable.

I find the claim is not well founded.

Non-Appearance of both parties at hearing.