ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00042807

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Aurimas Bieliauskas	Fjfl Limited

Representatives

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00053322-001	18/10/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/06/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 27 of the Organisation of Working Act, 1997 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. The hearing was scheduled as an in person hearing to take place in Lansdowne House.

While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Mr Aurimas Bieliauskas as “the Complainant” and to Fjfl Limited as “the Respondent”.

Having waited a reasonable period of time, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant or the Respondent at the hearing on 23/06/2023. I am satisfied that the Complainant and the Respondent were duly notified of the details of the hearing. Neither party attended. A postponement had not been sought.

Background:

These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 18/10/2022. The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 23/06/2023.

Having waited a reasonable period of the time on the day, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I am satisfied the Complainant was duly notified of the details of the hearing. The Complainant did not attend. A postponement had not been sought.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the adjudication hearing.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the adjudication hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

There was no appearance by either party at the hearing. I am satisfied the parties were notified in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaints would be held. There was no application for a postponement submitted in the weeks or days preceding the hearing.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaints are 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 complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time, 1997 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

CA-00053322-001 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons set out above, I decide the complaint listed above is not well-founded.

Dated: 18/07/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Key Words:

no appearance both parties;