ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00045412
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ashwin Ramdas | Ekco Cloud Limited |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00056178-001 | 19/04/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/09/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Procedure:
In accordance with 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.
Parties were advised that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, and that this decision would not be anonymised and there was no objection to same. Parties were also advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination is permitted. Any submissions received were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation.
Background:
The complainant submits that he commenced employment with the respondent on 20th July 2022 and was dismissed from his employment on 25 January 2023, he claims that he was unfairly dismissed. The respondent submits that the complainant is not covered by the legislation as he has less than one years’ service. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that He commenced employment with the respondent on 20th July 2022 He was dismissed from his employment on 25 January 2023. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was not in attendance at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent wrote to the Commission prior to the hearing objecting to the hearing of the claim on the grounds that the complainant did not have the required 12 months service to pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The complainant advised the hearing that he commenced employment with the respondent on 20th July 2022 and was dismissed from his employment on 25 January 2023. Section 2(1)(a) of the Act provides 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 Act is very clear that to enjoy the protection of the Act, a complainant must meet the service requirement set out unless a provision of that Act exempts him from that requirement. The complainant did not make an assertion that he was covered by an exemption to the 12 months service requirement. I find that the complainant, having less than 12 months service at the date of termination of his employment, lacks the locus standi to pursue the complaint and I determine that I do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on his complaint of unfair dismissal. |
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 find that the complainant, having less than 12 months service at the date of termination of his employment, lacks the locus standi to pursue the complaint and I determine that I do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on his complaint of unfair dismissal. |
Dated: 25th September 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|