ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049212

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Dr. Aoife A. Quinn	Beamont Hospital

Representatives

IBEC

Complaints:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00059216-004	03/10/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00059216-005	03/10/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00059216-006	03/10/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2010	CA-00059216-007	03/10/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00059216-008	03/10/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00059216-009	03/10/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00059216-010	03/10/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/06/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submitted seven complaints as set out above, but she did not attend the hearing.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent attended the hearing and submitted its written responses to the complainant’s case.

Findings and Conclusions:

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging breaches of the above statutes and was referred to me for investigation.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing.

I am satisfied that the complainant consented to receiving correspondence by email and was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation

For the reasons set out above complaints CA-00059216-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009 and 010 are not well founded.

Dated: 29-07-2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Key Words:

‘No Show’ complainant.