ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00040226
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Matt Breslin | Southwest Doctors On Call Company Limited By Guarantee |
Representatives | Terence F Casey & Co | Mr. Darach Mc Namara B.L instructed by Downey, Courtney & Larkin |
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-00052087-001 | 04/08/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/2/2023 and 07/09/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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.
This matter was 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. In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Data Protection Officer/HR Manager from February 27th 2017 to February 11th 2022. He tended his written resignation on February 2nd 2022 to take effect from February 16th 2020. Nothing in the resignation letter includes any concerns or issues relating to his reason for resigning or his time as an employee and is very amicable. Following an incident at work he was paid his notice due on February 11th 2022. The Respondent denied any dismissal took place. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A Complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the Complainant on August 4th 2022 alleging that his former employer contravened the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 in relation to him. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A Hearing for that purpose was held on February 10th 2023 and at the commencement of the Hearing the Parties requested a short break and retuned to advise they had reached verbal settlement terms and this agreement was subject to written terms of settlement within six weeks. The WRC requested an update from the Complainant on the status of the complaint on four occasions and no response was received to these requests. The Respondent advised that the parties did not agree the written terms of settlement. A new Hearing was then scheduled for September 7th 2023. At the Hearing on September 7th there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at that Hearing. I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and method at which the Hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and were not present at the Hearing. |
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.
No evidence was put forward at the first Hearing and as the Complainant was not present at the second hearing to give evidence of this complaint, I find the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Dated: 15/9/23
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal |