ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043792
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Alan McCabe | Automobile Association |
Representatives | SIPTU | Arthur Cox |
Complaint:
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-00054069-001 | 09/12/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
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:
The within complaint relates to an alleged unfair dismissal. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing due to ill health. He was represented at the adjudication hearing by his trade union, SIPTU. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the adjudication hearing and applied for the complaint to be dismissed on the basis that the complainant had not attended the adjudication hearing to pursue his complaint and had not submitted a medical certificate in advance of the adjudication hearing to explain his absence as he had been advised to do. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission on 9th December 2022 whereby the complainant alleged that his former employer contravened the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 in relation to him. The complaint was assigned the complaint application number CA-000154069-001. The said complaints were referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was arranged for 31st August 2023. In advance of the hearing taking place, the complainant notified the WRC that he would not be in attendance as he was medically unfit to do so. The complainant was advised that a medical certificate would be required in those circumstances. No medical certificate was furnished. The complainant’s representative attended the adjudication hearing and indicated that the parties had been attempting to resolve the issue at local level and had previously sought an adjournment of the hearing for that reason, but this request had been denied. In relation to the complainant’s absence from the adjudication hearing, the Union confirmed its understanding that the complainant was unable to attend for medical reasons but had not obtained a medical certificate in advance of the adjudication hearing as instructed. In an attempt to assist the parties, and due to the short timeframe between the complainant notifying the WRC of his illness and the adjudication hearing, I informed the parties that I would allow the complainant until close of business on Friday 1st September 2023 to furnish a medical certificate explaining his absence and if that were to occur the matter could be rescheduled. This was not done, and the trade union notified the WRC by email at approximately 6pm on Friday 1st September 2023 that the complainant had not been in a position to furnish same. Accordingly, I conclude that that the complainant did not pursue his complaint and therefore I find that the complaint 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.
In all of the circumstances of the matter, I must conclude that the within complaint (CA-00054069-001 is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
Dated: 7th September 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal, non-attendance at adjudication hearing |