ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031451
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | John McHugh | Whitecroft Developments Construction and Civil Engineering Company |
Representatives | Did not attend | William Wall, Peninsula |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00041880-001 | 08/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 as amendedfollowing 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.
At the adjudication hearing, the Respondent was advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised.
The Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing.
The Respondent was represented by Mr William Wall, Peninsula. Deirdre Ryan, Rossa O’Callaghan and Kevin McDonnell attended the hearing on behalf of the Respondent.
Background:
The Complainant referred his claim to the Director General of the WRC pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act on 8 January 2021.
On 16 March 2021, the WRC wrote to the Complainant to inform him that notification of his complaint which was sent to the Respondent on 27 January 2021 has been returned undelivered from An Post marked “Gone Away”. The Complainant was requested to provide an alternative address for the Respondent, if possible. The Complainant reverted on 31 March 2021 informing the WRC that he would check the Respondent’s address as it could have moved locations.
There has been no communication from the Complainant and on 18 October 2022, the WRC wrote to the Complainant informing him that should he fail to respond within 21 days, in accordance with section 48 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the Director General may decide to strike out his complaint on the basis that he has not pursued the matter within the past 12 months. On 5 November 2022, the Complainant responded with an address for the Respondent. An adjudication hearing for the purpose of investigating the complaint was scheduled for 25 May 2023. The hearing was subsequently cancelled. A second adjudication hearing was scheduled for 17 August 2023 to be held remotely. The hearing had to be abandoned due to technical difficulties experienced at the Complainant’s end. On 2 October 2024, the parties were notified of the arrangements for an in-person hearing to be held on 20 November 2024.
On 18 November 2024, the Complainant emailed the WRC Post Registration Unit (PRU) informing it that he would not be able to attend the hearing “due to issues beyond my control”. The WRC replied to the Complainant requesting him to email the Postponements Unit at postponements@workplacerelations.ie outlining his reason for requesting a postponement, along with supporting documentation showing his unavailability, should he wished to apply for a postponement of the hearing. The Complainant was also asked to provide the ADJ or CA reference number of the case he referred to.
The Complainant reverted on 19 November 2024 to the PRU and copying the Postponement Unit stating “John Mchugh versus Whitecroft case”. The Postponement Unit emailed the Complainant requesting him again to provide supporting documentation that establishes his unavailability for pre-existing or unavoidable reasons, if he wished his postponement request to be considered.
The Complainant replied stating that he had no transport as his van broke down on Saturday (presumably 16 November 2024). The Complainant’s request was considered and was found not to meet the exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons threshold. The Complainant’s request for a postponement of the hearing was declined. The Complainant did not appeal the decision to decline his postponement application.
There was no appearance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant at the adjudication hearing. No further communication has been received from the Complainant as of the date of the drafting of this decision.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent, its representative and witnesses attended the hearing and was ready to present its case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Complainants are required to attend the hearing of their complaint/s before the WRC to pursue same. Even where the burden of proof rests with the Respondent in the instance of an unfair dismissal complaint, it is still necessary to hear from a complainant in terms of confirming various details including the remedy being sought and mitigation of any financial loss. The Complainant emailed the WRC at a very late stage stating that he was unable to attend the hearing. While he did not explicitly seek a postponement, the WRC considered his unavailability in the context of a postponement request. The postponement was declined and the Complainant was informed that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. I find that the Complainant’s non-attendance at this hearing to pursue this complaint constitutes an abandonment of same. Accordingly, I find this complaint not to be 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.
I find this complaint to be not well founded. |
Dated: 03-12-24
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
Non-attendance |