ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00042782
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adrian Smyth | Eden Recruitment |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00053131-002 | 06/10/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
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 6th of October 2022.
|
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 30th of March 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 believed that he had been Unfairly Dismissed from his place of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was not in attendance at the hearing. I am satisfied that the Respondent Company was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 30th of March 2023 - and sent to the address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. This fact was confirmed in an email from the Company Finance Manager and sent to the WRC on the 31st of March 2023. I understand that the Respondent intended fully defending the within complaint. The Defence is outlined in the email previously noted and received by the WRC on the 31st of March 2023. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend. The Respondent also did not attend. I was provided with no evidence by the Complainant and no case was made. I allowed time for the Complainant to attend but he did not turn up in the one and a half hour period allotted to this matter. It is not clear if the parties compromised this matter as no communication was had with the offices of the WRC.
|
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00053131-002 – No evidence was adduced, and I can make no finding that there has been an Unfair Dismissal.
|
Dated: 21th June 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|