Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Veronica  Kennedy

Pettits Supervalue

Representatives

Helen Barry                                   Simplify HR

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-00053032-001

28/09/2022

This matter was to be heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party would have been prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski  -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice.  It was necessary to inform the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there was a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me.

The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 23rd of February 2023 - and sent to the address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form.

From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant sought to establish that she was Unfairly Dismissed by reason of Constructive Dismissal.

The Respondent was represented by a HR Consultant. Three witnesses also attended to provide evidence of the circumstances surrounding the cessation of this employment.

I understand that the Respondent intended fully defending the within complaint.

The Complainant did not attend. The Complainant had contacted the WRC case officer a day or two in advance of the hearing stating that she would not attend as she had made a mistake about dates. It is noted that the Complainant did not apply for a postponement though she was invited to do so.

The Respondent had gone to some effort to bring together representation and witnesses to mount a full defence to the claim being brought. The Respondent was not consenting to any postponement of this matter.

It is noted that a right of appeal lies to the Labour Court and the Respondent is aware of this fact

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00053032-001  - The Complainant has not established or demonstrated that arising out of the conduct of her Employer, she was entitled to terminate this employment.  The Unfair Dismissal claim therefore fails.