ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00046897
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Gym Assistant | A Gym |
Representatives | Conway’s Solicitors | No Appearance by or on behalf of the Employer |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | 13 December 2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Date of Hearing: 23/06/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
On 13 December 2022, the Worker in this case filed a complaint of unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. At that time, he appears to have been a Lay Litigant until Conway’s Solicitors communicated that they were acting for him in February 2023. There was no response to this claim from the Employer. There was no appearance by either party at hearing. I was surprised at this and have waited for several weeks in case either party contacted the WRC in follow up in explanation for nonappearance. I am satisfied that neither party has followed up in the matter. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The complaint form submitted indicated that the Worker had left his position on 7 September 2022 due to the conduct of the employer. The remedy identified was compensation. The Workers Solicitors office augmented this on 23 February 2023 by submitting: Our client had to leave his job due to the conduct of his employer or others at work (Constructive Dismissal). Our client does not have at least 12 months service. The Employer was recording staff while on duty. Our client was never made aware that the employees were being monitored until after commencing work and it came to light a while after that audio was being used. Our client was taken aback to discover that he was being monitored on a CCTV system during his working hours. There was no appearance at private hearing by either the worker or his representative. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
There was no defence to this claim. There was no appearance at hearing or reasons given for nonappearance. |
Conclusions:
I have attempted to investigate the dispute raised. The Worker had submitted that he had to leave his job due to the conduct of his employer on 7 September 2022. There was no appearance by either party at hearing. I did not receive any written submissions in advancement or defence of this claim. I am satisfied that both parties were placed on proper notice of hearing on 19 May 2023 and the decision taken not to attend hearing or at the very least inform the WRC that they were not accepting the invitation to attend is unreasonable.
My obligation under Section 13 of the Act is to investigate this dispute and if possible, to make a Recommendation for consideration of the parties . As there was no appearance by either party at hearing, or any explanation for this nonappearance, I cannot engage in such an investigation, I cannot find any merit in this dispute.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I have not found merit in this dispute.
Dated: 26/07/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Non-Appearance at hearing |