ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046796
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Veaceslav Gafton | Rice Transport And Comercial Repairs |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Non-attendance |
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-00057590-001 | 07/07/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant undertook to give his evidence under affirmation. The respondent indicated that they would be in attendance for the hearing but failed to login at the appointed time. The hearing concierge called both phone numbers provided by the respondent but neither call was answered. In the circumstances I was satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded with a 15-minute pause to enable the respondent to contact the WRC or otherwise connect for the hearing. Thereafter the hearing started. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he was unfairly dismissed. He noted that his starting date was 13 March 2023, and his end date was 7 June 2023. He confirmed that he was not a member of a union and was not involved in any union activities. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent failed to attend the hearing of this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submitted that he was unfairly dismissed. He noted that his starting date in this employment was 13 March 2023, and the end date was 7 June 2023, amounting to service of approximately three months. He confirmed that he was not a member of a union and was not involved in any union activities as had been noted on his compliant form. In his complaint form the complainant indicated that he had less than the 12 months service required by the Unfair Dismissals Act. Section 2(1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 states as follows: 2.—(1) Except in so far as any provision of this Act otherwise provides this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons: (a) an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him The complainant falls within the exclusion clause outlined at Section 2(1)(a) in that he has less than 12 months service. He was not referred to in Section 4 of the Act which deals with apprenticeship. Accordingly, the Act shall not apply to him. |
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.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant is excluded from the protections afforded by the Unfair Dismissals Act as outlined in Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. |
Dated: 14-11-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal – service requirement not met – excluded from the protections of the Act |