ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031357
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Marta Machel | Lidl Ireland GmbH |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Killian O'Reilly Fieldfisher |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00041700-002 | 23/12/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00041700-003 | 23/12/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00041700-004 | 23/12/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015-2021] and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act [1977-2017], following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to present any relevant evidence. At the outset I drew the parties attention to the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Zalewski V Adjudication Officer and WRC [2021] IESC 24 and I note the WRC had done likewise prior to the adjudication hearing. In addition I advised the parties that the adjudication hearing would be conducted in accordance with fair procedures including opportunity for cross examination and that evidence would be taken on oath/affirmation.
The adjudication hearing commenced on 1/11/22. On that occasion the hearing was conducted remotely 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. An interpreter provided by the WRC was sworn in. The Complainant was unrepresented and the Respondent was represented by Mr Killian O’Reilly, Solicitor Fieldfisher. Representatives of the Respondent also attended. However, due to persistent IT difficulties which in my view rendered it not possible to properly deal with submissions or evidence, I adjourned that day and agreed with the parties to reconvene a face-to-face hearing.
The adjudication hearing resumed in Mullingar Court House on 7/3/23. The Complainant did not attend nor did she provide any prior reason for her absence. However, when contacted by the WRC on the day, the Complainant stated that she had forgot the date. The Respondent was represented by Mr Roland Rowan BL instructed by Fieldfisher. Representatives of the Respondent also attended. There was however no interpreter and having checked with the WRC, I was satisfied that an interpreter had not been booked for the adjudication hearing. In the circumstances, I decided to adjourn again notwithstanding the objections of the Respondent and its request that the complaints be dismissed. Having regard to the matters raised by the Respondent I undertook to write to the parties.
On 22 March 2023 the parties were advised by letter from the WRC that the Adjudication Officer had decided - after careful consideration - to schedule a resumed hearing with an interpreter present.
The adjudication hearing resumed and concluded in Mullingar Court House on 30/5/23. The Complainant did not attend nor did she provide any reason for her absence. An interpreter provided by the WRC was in attendance. The Respondent was represented by Mr Roland Rowan BL instructed by Fieldfisher. Representatives of the Respondent also attended. Having satisfied myself that the Complainant had been properly notified of the adjudication hearing by letter from the WRC of 19 April 2023 and having waited approximately fifteen minutes, I decided to proceed with the adjudication hearing as scheduled.
Summary of Complainant’s Case
The Complainant’s completed Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 23/12/2020. The Complainant submitted additional documentation in support of her complaints. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s written Outline Statement was submitted to the WRC on 21 October 2022. The Respondent submitted additional documentation in support of its position. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on 23/12/2020. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. As outlined under the paragraph headed ‘Procedure’, the adjudication hearing commenced remotely on 1/11/2022 but was adjourned due to persistent IT difficulties. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the subsequent resumed face-to-face hearings held on 7/3/2023 and 30/5/2023.
In circumstances where I satisfied myself that the Complainant had been properly notified by letter of the time and date of the resumed face-to-face adjudication hearings and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaints are not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015 – 2021] requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act [1977-2017] 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.
CA-00041700-002 For the reasons outlined this complaint is not well founded.
CA-00041700-003 For the reasons outlined this complaint is not well founded.
CA-00041700-004 For the reasons outlined this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 10th of January 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
Non Attendance of Complainant |