ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00033521
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gedas Barusevicius | Conaty Steel Limited |
Representatives | Ms. Jurga Petkus, Professional Translations & Consulting | Self-Represented |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00044354-001 | 26/05/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/06/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following 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.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment on 9th May 2016. At all times his role was described as that of “welder”. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff. The Complainant alleged that his employment with the Respondent was terminated on 15th January.
On 26th May 2021, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein he alleged that he was dismissed on 15th January 2021. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not been dismissed on this date, and that his employment continued thereafter.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 17th June 2022. This hearing was conducted 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. The Complainant did not attend the hearing in person, however his representative appeared on his behalf. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Whilst the Complainant did not attend the hearing, his representative made various submissions on his behalf. In particular, the Complainant’s representative stated that the Complainant believed himself to be dismissed following an amendment to his employment status on the revenue website. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended that hearing and advised that they were willing to defend the allegation made by the Complainant. However, in circumstances whereby the Complainant did not attend that hearing, they submitted that the matter must fail. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the present case, the Complainant did not attend the hearing to prosecute his complaint. While his representative outlined his complaint on his behalf, submissions cannot be elevated to the status of evidence in the absence of sworn evidence from the party to whom they relate. In this regard it was apparent that the Complainant was aware of the time, date and venue of the hearing. Having regard to the same, and the fact that no adjournment application was made on the part of the Complainant, the application must fail. |
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.
I find that the Complaint was not unfair dismissed. Consequently, his complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 13th March 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Non-attendance, submission, evidence |