ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025380
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sean Kelly | Shannon Transport International Limited , T/A Stl Logistics |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | SIPTU | Brendan McCarthy, Stratis Consulting |
Complaint(s):
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-00032237-001 | 15/11/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00032237-002 | 15/11/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/03/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
On7/3/2022, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The complainant did not attend.
SIPTU attended on behalf of the complainant.
The respondent was represented by Mr. Brendan McCarthy, Stratis Consulting, a HR company.
The respondent General Manager attended.
Background:
The complainant submitted a complaint that he was unfairly dismissed on the 31 May 2019 and a complaint that he was denied his paid notice entitlements. He commenced employment with the respondent logistics company as a driver’s helper on 1 September 2003. His net weekly salary was €550. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 15 November 2019.
|
Preliminary issue.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Preliminary issue; application for a postponement. The complainant’s representative applied for an adjournment at the hearing and referred to the written application for postponement, submitted on 1/3/2022, which had been declined. The complainant has had very limited contact with SIPTU. He had been on annual leave. He advised SIPTU on the previous Friday, 4 March, of a family bereavement, but gave no details of the relationship with the deceased person.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent stated that they would be guided by the adjudicator |
Preliminary issue.
Findings and Conclusions:
The notification of the hearing issued on 27/1/2022. The complainant applied to the WRC for an adjournment on 1/3/2022. This was declined. The exceptional circumstances presented to me at the hearing included the fact that the complainant had been on annual leave, its extent unknown. I was further advised that the complainant had suffered a family bereavement the previous Friday, 4 March, but again the funeral arrangements and relationship between the complainant and the deceased relative were unknown to the complainant’s representative. There was no evidence presented to support these reasons for the complainant’s absence. That being so, I do not find these reasons for the complainant’s absence amount to exceptional circumstances. I refuse the application for an adjournment. |
Substantive Case.
Summary of Complainant’s Case
The complainant did not attend the hearing |
Substantive Case.
Summary of Respondent’s Case
the respondent attended the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission from the complainant on 15 November 2019 alleging that the respondent had contravened the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 in relation to him. A hearing for that purpose was held on 07/03/2022. There was no appearance by the complainant at the hearing. I refused his application for an adjournment. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. 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 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.
CA-00032237-001. Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. I decide that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00032237-002. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. I decide that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 15th March 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Application for adjournment refused. No show |