ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00041119
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | John Walsh | Rhenus Logistics Logistics Company |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00052359-001 | 22/08/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
The hearing was scheduled for 19/04/2023. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant.
I am satisfied that the complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 02/03/2023 advising him of the date, time and venue of the hearing. The e-mail was the sent to the one provided by the complainant and which he used for all correspondence with the WRC. The complainant was also provided with a copy of the respondent’s submission and appendices.
In order to exercise a significant amount of caution I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close. There was no further communication received from or on behalf of the complainant to indicate why he did not attend. T I am satisfied that he was familiar with the WRC postponement process which were outlined in the letter dated 02/03/2023 and no such request was received from the complainant.
The respondent’s representatives and witnesses attended the hearing.
Background:
The complainant was employed as a warehouse operative by the respondent. He commenced employment on 30/09/2019. His salary was €23,793.00. Following an incident on 27/7/2022 the respondent undertook an investigation which led to a disciplinary hearing. Following this hearing the complainant was dismissed on 09/08/2022. The complainant submitted a complaint of unfair dismissal to the WRC on 18/10/2022. The respondent denies that this dismissal was in any way unfair, either procedurally or substantively. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing to provide any evidence in relation to this complaint. There was no communication received from or on behalf of the complainant either prior to or after the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s representatives and witnesses attended the hearing. They were prepared to give evidence in defence of the complaint on behalf of the respondent and in accordance with their written submissions and accompanying documentation submitted on its behalf. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing to pursue the complaint and/or give evidence in relation to this complaint I conclude that the complaint is not well founded. |
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 am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements. I find that his non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015 I find this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 19th May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal. Non-attendance. |