ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00045687
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shona Battigan | Dublin Dental University Hospital (DDUH) |
Representatives | N/A | Judy McNamara, Ibec. |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00056494-001 | 05/05/2023 |
Dates of Adjudication Hearing: 19/09/2023 and 01/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
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.
Background:
On 5 May 2023, the Complainant submitted a complaint to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”), alleging that the Respondent did not provide her paid holiday/annual leave entitlement, in contravention of S.I. No. 507/2006 - European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006.
The Hearing was scheduled for 19 September 2023. The Complainant and her witness, a former colleague, were in attendance. The Respondent’s Head of HR and the Respondent’s Ibec Representative were also in attendance. At the Hearing, the Parties agreed that the complaint should have properly been brought under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. I have noted the same in this Decision. At the Hearing, the Complainant also outlined that two days previously, she had filed further documents, which neither the Respondent nor I had yet had sight of. The Complainant also indicated that she had approximately 40 further documents which she wished to rely on, that she had not yet filed. The Respondent requested an adjournment. In the circumstances, I adjourned the Hearing to enable the Complainant to file the documents and to enable the Respondent to file a revised response.
The second Hearing day was scheduled for 1 December 2023. On 23 October 2023, the Parties were notified of the Hearing arrangements by the WRC. The same letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. Neither Party requested a postponement. On 28 November 2023, the Complainant wrote to the WRC, outlining her intention not to attend the Hearing. On 1 December 2023, the Respondent’s Head of HR and the Respondent’s Ibec Representative attended the Hearing. A grace period was allowed to enable the Complainant to attend but she did not do so.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was in attendance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On 23 October 2023, the Parties were notified of the Hearing arrangements by the WRC. The same letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. Neither Party requested a postponement. The Complainant failed to attend the Hearing and failed to present any evidence in support of her complaint. In the circumstances, I find that the complaint is 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.
For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 5th January 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Non-attendance. |