Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039391
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ema Karinauskaite | P.J Export Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Did not attend | Rebecca De Groot of Peninsula Business Services |
Complaints:
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-00051484-001 | 01/04/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00051484-002 | 01/04/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015; Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
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 normally be in Public, Testimony under Affirmation or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Oath / Affirmation was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
No issue regarding confidentiality arose.
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.
1: Non-Appearance of Complainant
The Complainant did not attend the Hearing. The Adjudicator was satisfied that proper notice of the time, date and place of the Hearing had been properly served.
A period of some two weeks was allowed post the Hearing date for mitigation evidence in relation to the non-attendance to be proffered to the WRC. None was received.
2: Findings and Conclusions:
As the Complainant did not appear and no evidence was offered the complaints are deemed legally Not Properly Founded and are dismissed. |
3: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015; Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
3:1 Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
CA-00051484-002
The complaint is deemed legally Not Properly Founded and accordingly fails.
3:2 Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994
CA-00051484-001
The complaint is deemed legally Not Properly Founded and accordingly fails.
Dated: 13.08.2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Non-Appearance of Party, Not Properly Founded case. |