ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00050565
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Cleaner | Public House |
Representatives | No attendance | Yvonne O'Malley YOM HR Solutions |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act 1969 Section 13 | CA-00061966 | 04/03/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Date of Hearing: 10/07/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
The dispute was referred to the WRC on 04.03.24. The employer did not object to a hearing of the dispute. Notice of the hearing scheduled for July 10th was issued by the WRC on May 8th, 2024. An interpreter was provided by the WRC to assist the worker with translation at the hearing. The worker did not attend the hearing. The file was checked by the WRC on my behalf to ensure the notice was issued to the correct email address. When I was satisfied that the notice of the hearing was correctly issued I concluded that every reasonable effort was made by the WRC to notify the worker of the date location and time of the hearing. A period of twenty-five minutes was allowed for late arrival. However, the worker did not attend.
As I am satisfied the worker had the opportunity to be heard, a recommendation is issued on the dispute based on her non-attendance.
Background:
The dispute referred by the worker was one of being unfairly dismissed from the employment. Details were provided on the WRC form and some additional documents were submitted. |
Summary of Workers Case:
As the worker did not attend the hearing, the details of the dispute are not required. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer provided a detailed written submission in which they rejected the account of the dispute provided by the worker. |
Conclusions:
The employer spoke about the cost in time and effort he had made to attend at the hearing including bringing other workers to the hearing and the cost of providing a submission and preparing to present his case. His dissatisfaction was noted as was his co-operation with what is a voluntary process. The cost to the WRC of arranging the hearing and engaging an interpreter was also noted. In the absence of the worker, no recommendation can be made on the substance of the dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As the worker did not attend the hearing, I recommend that the matter be regarded as closed.
Dated: 15th of July 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Dismissal less than twelve months service-no attendance |