ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031504
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Nicola Fox | Lloyds Pharmacy Ireland Limited t/a Lloyds Pharmacy |
Representatives | Did not attend | B. McCarthy -Stratis Consulting |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00041924-001 | 08/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/09/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 & Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991following 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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
There were no issues raised regarding confidentiality in the publication of the decision.
Background:
The issue in contention concerned an alleged failure by the Respondent to pay a Christmas Bonus. The matter was satisfactorily resolved in negotiation with the Mandate Trade Union.
The Adjudication decision is a purely pro forma matter.
I was happy that all parties had been properly notified of the Date, Time and Place of the Hearing. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not appear. No evidence was presented. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As the Complainant did not appear or present evidence the Respondent was not called to give any rebuttal. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
The Complaint is dismissed as Not well Founded. No evidence was presented either in Writing or in Oral Testimony. |
4: Decision:
CA: 00041924-001
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
The complaint fails as being Not Well Founded.
Dated: 20th March 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Christmas Bonus, Payment of Wages Act,1991 |
|
|
|