ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043511
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Cristian Lungu | Mount Window and Doors |
Representatives | No Show | No Show |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00054439-001 | 10/01/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 stated that his employment was terminated on the 23rd of December 2022 and that he is owed €725.80. The Complaint was lodged on the 11th of January 2023 and the Complainant worked as a Window Fitter. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant failed to attend |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent failed to attend |
Findings and Conclusions:
Notification of the hearing was sent to the Complainant on the 12th of July 2023 by ordinary post at the address provided by the Complainant. I determine that the Complainant was properly notified of the date, time and location of the hearing. Section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act states: 42. (1) An adjudication officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint or dispute referred to him or her under section 41 if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious. The matter before me is not frivolous or made in bad faith as understood generally; however, it is legally misconceived as the Complainant has failed to attend at the hearing. These are legal technical terms and as explained Delaney and McGrath on Civil Procedure 4th Edition 2018 mean: The meaning of the words “frivolous or vexatious” as used in the context of s.10(1)(b)(ii) of the Data Protection Act 1988 as amended was considered by Birmingham J in Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner,28 where he stated that “frivolous, in this context does not mean only foolish or silly, but rather a complaint that was futile, or misconceived or hopeless in the sense that it was incapable of achieving the desired outcome.” This description was referred to by Irvine J in her judgment in the Court of Appeal in Fox v McDonald,29 where she stated that “the word ‘frivolous’ when used in the context of O. 19 r, 28 is usually deployed to describe proceedings which the court feels compelled to terminate because their continued existence cannot be justified having regard to the relevant circumstance.” As neither the Complainant or the Respondent were in attendance at the hearing I determine that the matter is legally misconceived. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
As the Complainant has failed to attend to make out his case, I dismiss the Complaint and determine that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 8th November 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No Show |