ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047794
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Catherine O Sullivan | An Cosan |
Representatives |
| Ciara Fitzgerald |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00057741-001 | 16/07/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00057741-002 | 16/07/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
A hearing was scheduled for 09/04/2024. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant. The respondent’s legal representatives and a number of witnesses were present and prepared to defend its position in relation to these complaints.
I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close. As of the date of this decision there was no further communication received from or on behalf of the complainant.
Background:
The complainant was employed as an Early Childhood Educator with the respondent from 01/02/2022 until 13/01/2023. The complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 16/07/2023 seeking adjudication under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 a second complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. She was paid €525.00 gross per week, and she worked a 37.5-hour week. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s legal representatives and a number of witnesses attended the hearing and were prepared to defend its position in relation to these two complaints. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the date, time and venue of the hearing. I note that she was familiar with the WRC’s postponement process and had utilised this on a previous occasion. As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing to pursue the complaints and/or give evidence in relation to these complaints I conclude that these complaints are not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements. I find that her non-attendance at time of the hearing, without any notification, to pursue these complaints to be unreasonable. CA-00057741-001 In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. I find this complaint is not well-founded. CA-00057741-002 In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. I find this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 22-04-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
No attendance. |