ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054435
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vincent Roche | Ailesbury Services Ailesbury Security |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00057739-001 | 14/07/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00057739-002 | 14/07/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00057739-003 | 14/07/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00057739-004 | 14/07/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00057739-005 | 14/07/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaints/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints/dispute.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. (More on this in the Decision below). |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This case was scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, November 13th, 2024.
The respondent was in attendance, but the complainant did not appear. After waiting for a reasonable period, approximately thirty minutes, the hearing was concluded subject to the normal principles which are applied in such circumstances.
Those principles are that is a party who fails to attend, but later submits a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their failure to attend will have this fully considered.
Where the explanation is deemed to be acceptable and excuses the non-attendance, the hearing will be re-scheduled for a future date.
However, the explanation must involve some very significant, unforeseen event which directly prevented the party in question attending. Examples might include the sudden onset of illness on the part of the complainant or a close family member, an accident on the way to the hearing or some other unforeseen event which prevented a party attending.
In some circumstances it might relate to the party not having been properly notified of the hearing.
However, the onus falls on any such party seeking a fresh hearing to establish, in general terms, that despite genuine intentions to do so, and through no fault of their own that they could not attend.
It appears that the complainant and his representative, his sister, did attend on November 14th, the day after the scheduled date thinking that was the day of the hearing.
The following correspondence was received from the representative.
I am writing on behalf of Vincent Roche, the complainant in the above matter. I am Vincent's sister. Vincent unfortunately missed this hearing which had been scheduled for 13/11/24 as he misread the notice and advised me that the hearing date was 14th November. Vincent and I attended the WRC this morning based on this understanding.
On behalf of Vincent I would like to unreservedly apologise for the confusion which led to wasting the assigned adjudicator time and request if possible that the hearing be rescheduled.
To avoid further confusion, Vincent (in copy) has authorised me to receive the notification on his behalf in the event that the adjudicator agreed to the request for the reschedule.
Once again I would like to apologise for the mistake, the adjudicators consideration of the matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, Valerie Woods
Unfortunately for this submission I do not accept that simply overlooking the correct date or reading November 13th to be November 14th is an adequate excuse nor does it represent a sufficient basis to re-schedule the hearing.
The original reference of the complaints to the WRC was on July 14th, 2023, and there were very considerable delays due mainly to the failure of the complainant to submit additional information which was requested, and which was necessary for the processing of the complaints.
The WRC sought further information from him on July 26th, 2023, but did not receive a reply until September 3rd, 2024, and only following a reminder the day before from the WRC.
I must have some regard to the obligations falling on a complainant to prosecute his case with due attention and the associated rights of the respondent to have the complaints against it addressed in a timely manner.
Accordingly, having regard to all these facts, I do not regard the email above as sufficient to excuse the complainant’s failure to attend and I find therefore that his complaints are not well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints/dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons set out above Complaints CA-00057739-001, 003 and 004 are not well founded. Complaint CA-00057739-002 is not upheld and in respect of Complaint CA-00057739-005 the complaint fails. |
Dated: 5th December 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
‘No Show’, non-attendance at hearing. |