ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043296
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Derek Molloy | Transdev |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 | CA-00053743-001 | 16/11/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) 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 complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant worked as an electrician for the Respondent transport company.
On the 16th of November he submitted a complaint under the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006.
The narrative of the complaint and his subsequent submissions outline that his complaint concerns a “near miss” event in August 2021 when he and a colleague worked below tram wires which turned out to be live.
The Complainant’s complaint form indicated that this complaint relates to the ensuing investigation which he was not given the findings of. The complaint form states that the incident had a serious impact on him and his family.
A hearing was held into this matter and though the Complainant was notified about the hearing on Friday the 18th of August and he did not attend. On Monday the 14th of August the Complainant submitted request to attend remotely which was not processed on time to facilitate.
I note that the Complainant was notified of the hearing more than 6 weeks in advance.
The Complainant’s trade union official attended the hearing however this was more out of courtesy to the WRC as he did not believe he could represent his member in his absence. He indicated that he had difficulty obtaining instructions from his member.
The Respondent attended the hearing. They argue that the Complainant does not come under the scope of this act. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant furnished detailed written submissions which were submitted directly to the WRC. He failed to attend a hearing. In his submissions the Complainant does not suggest that he is an employees’ representative as outlined under the act nor that his alleged grievances with the Respondent stem from such a role. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended the hearing fully prepared to submit a defence. They are clear that the Complainant did not fulfil the role of an employee representative as outlined by the act. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the hearing and failed to attend. Following a review of the file I note that the Complainant had requested, a few days before the hearing, to have the matter considered remotely. This request was extremely late considering the notice given to the Complainant of the hearing date, time and location. The request was not facilitated. In the circumstances I do not think it was reasonable for the Complainant to fail to attend and prosecute his case. I also note that, on review of his own submissions and the oral submissions of the Respondent, it appears that he does not come under the scope of this act. In the circumstances I believe the appropriate course of action is to not arrange for a reschedule hearing but to issue a decision concluding that the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the above complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 13th October 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|