ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044996
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Nadia Mielcarek | Kenneth Gilmer |
Representatives |
| Trevor Skinner |
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-00055747-001 | 27/03/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/07/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have been in a position to fulfil my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints. I have additionally and where appropriate provided facility to hear the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses so that I might take account of the evidence tendered.
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing. Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 27th of March 2023 by way of a workplace relations complaint form. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 2nd of June 2023 - and sent to the address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that she was not paid holiday pay by the Respondent Employer. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended the WRC on the appointed date. The Respondent owns a shop wherein the Complainant was employed for upwards of two years. The Respondent had representation at the hearing and was ready to defend this matter in circumstances where the holiday pay has been discharged. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend and provided no reason for the failure to attend. A number of days has passed with no word from the Complainant.
|
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00055747-001 – The Complainant herein is not well founded
|
Dated: 28/July/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|