Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

An employer.

Representatives

David McCarroll Ronan Daly Jermyn

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00067628-001

10/05/2022

The Complainant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The Respondent states that the Complainant was dismissed due to his failure/refusal to work his contractual hours.

There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Complainant.

The Respondent made an application to dismiss the within proceedings on the grounds that the Complainant did not appear to prosecute his complaints. 

The Complainant did not attend for the hearing today. Based on the numerous emails received from the Complainant, as are set out below, I am satisfied that he was fully aware of the hearing today but decided not to attend for his own personal reasons. It was open to Mr X to attend today to request an in person hearing or to apply for an adjournment. He did neither.

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:47 AM the Complainant wrote:

 Hi Dear I’m representing myself and my English language is not excellent so I couldn’t found interpreter. Where is my language, so it is suitable for me to have physical hearing rather than remote hearing plus remote hearing only for Covid now as we all know there is no Covid anymore so I highly regarded to have normal physical hearing, I’m not accept remote hearing because we are out from Covid, that’s only for Covid and I’m not accept remote hearing !!!Hello dear all I have Objections for the remote hearing after I read that the 26th Jun 2023 is the remote hearing is not suitable for me. I absolutely disagree with the remote hearing. I need a proper date for physical presentation hearing remote hearing is not suitable for me I need an answer before 5 working days please many thanks.Kind regards X”

On 24 May 2023, at 9:24 a.m. the WRC  wrote:

“Dear Sir, If you require an interpreter, please let me know in what language so the WRC can

check if we can book an interpreter for you. Kind Regards…”

On 24th May 2023 at 10.13pm The Complainant wrote:

 “Hi Dear, I appreciate your offer but none of the people from my country they don’t have fluent English as a lawyer because the court use a specific and tough language. I know most of them they don’t even understand what the letter I receive. I’m talking about doctors engineers, they can’t translate properly the court paper for that reason I don’t trust and I don’t want to accept any interpretation from my country. I prefer to physically attend myself I bring those abuses, discriminatory, racist and unprofessional corrupted people into justice. That’s all I don’t need the interpreter didn’t do well for me I’m not accept any interpreter if I get the chance to speak with the judge face-to-face I can’t explain by myself because I’ve been through a lot. This is only way to get justice. I’m not accept remote hearing at all.”

On 25 May 2023 at 11:05 a.m., WRC wrote: 

“Dear Mr X, I refer to your ongoing objection to a remote hearing and refusal of our offer to provide you with interpreter services. Please submit a formal appeal against the decision by the Adjudication Officer to refuse your objection to a remote hearing within two (2) days of this email”

On 25th May 2023 at 3.14pm The Complainant wrote:

“Hi Dear I’m not changing my mind I have already given you my strongest reason I refuse your interpreter offer because they don’t have enough legal knowledge. I refuse your offer. I object again and again remote hearing. It is no no no for remote hearing under no circumstances. I’m not accepting remote hearing. We are not in Covid. I need my Right I’m not attend remote hearing. I am done.”

On the 26th May : 15.01 the WRC emailed stating:

“Dear Mr X ,I refer to your email of the 25th May 2023, Thursday, received by the WRC at 3:14 PM Please note that the hearing on the 26th June 2023 at 10 AM will proceed as scheduled. Please send your replies to pru@workplacerelations.ie and not to the sender of this letter. Yours sincerely”

The Complainant replied:

“Hi dear that’s against my will so I’m not attend the Covid roll remote hearing, but I make case agonist. WRC all corrupt people will get justice.. Regards, X”

On the 19th June at 16.52 The WRC emailed stating :

“Dear Mr X, Many thanks for your email below. You have already been through the process of requesting a postponement and an appeal which where both refused by the postponement team. You were also offered an interpreter for the hearing to help. My colleague will be issuing you the WebEx Invitation to this email. it is a matter for yourself should you wish to attend or not. The Hearing may still proceed in your absence and a decision issued.”

Mr X replied on 19th June at 17.05 stating :

 Elaine you trying to do without my permission didn’t help I’m objecting the covid rule of remote hearing objection objection objection !!!! I don’t need translator. I am good enough but I’m objects the Covid rules. Regards X.

It is clear from the correspondence between the Complainant and the WRC that the Complainant, whilst he was objecting to the remote hearing, was fully aware it was going ahead on the 26th June. He was given the opportunity to apply for an adjournment and to appeal the decision refusing his application. It was open to him to attend today to set out his reasons for objecting to the remote hearing and /or apply for an adjournment. He, for reasons unknown to me, did neither.

In the circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded an accordingly fails.

CA 67628 – 001 The complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails. In the circumstances I am not making a recommendation.