ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039359
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Administrative Assistant | A Private Hospital |
Representatives |
| Rosemary Mallon B.L. instructed by Arthur Cox LL.P |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00050729-001 | 06/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00050729-002 | 06/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00050729-003 | 06/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00050729-006 | 06/05/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaints/disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints/disputes.
Background:
Adjudicator’s Note. The complainant did not attend the hearing.
Given that those complaints under the Industrial Relations Acts require to be anonymised in any event, in the particular circumstances of the complainant’s non-attendance and for convenience I have decided to anonymise the Decision/Recommendation in its entirety. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was in attendance and represented by Counsel. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging breaches of the above statutes and was referred to me for investigation. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing. He had engaged with the WRC some weeks before the hearing but did not attend on the day of the hearing. I verified that the complainant consented to receiving correspondence by email and was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form 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 statutory complaints are not well-founded and I decide accordingly.
Likewise, given the failure of the complainant to present his case under the various Industrial Relations Acts the referrals those complaints also fail. |
Decision/Recommendation
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Decision For the reasons set out above complaints CA-00050729-001 and 006 are not well founded. Recommendation For the reasons set out above complaints CA-00050729-002, and 003 are not upheld. |
Dated: 11th May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
‘No Show’ by complainant. |