ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050934
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rory O Donnell | Bg Provence The Waterfront Restaurant |
Representatives | No attendance | Benoit Gazannet |
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-00062254-001 | 15/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00062254-002 | 15/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00062254-003 | 15/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
A period of fifteen minutes was allowed for the late arrival of the Complainant; however, he did not attend for the hearing. Notice of the hearing was issued to the Complainant at the postal address provided on the complaint form.
Background:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a chef. On the complaint form he gave as his starting date 09/11/22 and finishing date 10/02/2024. The complaints submitted were as follows: not being provided with a statement of terms of employment; unpaid tips for three weeks commencing 04/02/24 and non-payment of wages for one extra day per week worked in unspecified weeks in June July August and September 2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did attend the hearing. He provided a written statement setting out his position on the complaints. All complaints were denied. The Respondent said he met the Complainant a couple of weeks ago who told him he would not be attending the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend to provide any evidence in support of his complaints. The correct finding in the circumstances is that the 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 in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00062254-001 Terms of Employment Information Act 1994 This complaint by Rory O’Donnell against Bg Provence is not well founded. CA-00062254-002 Payment of Wages Act 1991 This complaint by Rory O’Donnell against Bg Provence is not well founded. CA-00062254-003 Payment of Wages Act 1991 This complaint by Rory O’Donnell against Bg Provence is not well founded. |
Dated: 7th August, 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Various claims-no appearance |