ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046182
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Breda Stanley Pickford | South Leinster Citizens Information Tullamore Cic |
Representatives | None | Matt O’Connor Information Officer South Leinster Citizens Information Service |
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-00057041-001 | 09/06/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/10/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Paul McKeon
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 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. This matter was scheduled for the 05 October 2023 to be heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on the 09 June 2023 alleging a breach under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
A remote hearing for that purpose was scheduled for the 05 October2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant failed to attend the hearing of the case arranged for the 05 October 2023. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent representative attended at the hearing on behalf of the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the WRC from the Complainant on the 09 June 2023 alleging a breach under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
The hearing arrangements for the hearing were issued from the WRC to the Complainant by way of letter and email dated 05 September 2023 to attend a remote hearing on the 05 October 2023.
On this note, the Complainant did not attend the hearing on the 05 October 2023 and did not submit a defence in the case.
Apart from communication received on the 04 October 2023 by the Complainant stating that they could not attend the hearing, I note that the Complainant did not provide any further reason or documentation supporting why they could not attend the hearing.
When applications for a postponement are made to the WRC where no consent of the other party has been obtained, the reasons behind the application should be furnished together with any relevant supporting documentation at the time of the application. Such supporting documentation might include medical certificates, a death notice, evidence of flight bookings, proof of jury duty, etc.
In this regard, I note no further communications or documentation was received by the WRC prior to and on the date of the hearing from the Complainant seeking a postponement or withdrawing this claim.
Overall, I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing and by way of email of the date, time, and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held.
There is an onus on any party to a complaint, (but in particular a Complainant) to attend for a hearing of which they have been given proper notice.
In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the claim 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 do not find this complaint to be well founded. |
Dated: 25-10-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Paul McKeon
Key Words:
Non-attendance by the Complainant |