ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039317
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Justin O'Brien | Becton and Dickinson |
Representatives | ThomasO'Brien | Jacob and Twomey Solicitors LLP |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00050689-001 | 16/05/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/1/2023, 24/3/2023 and 07/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Moya de Paor
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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.
The Complainant attended the hearing on the second hearing day and was represented by Thomas O’Brien, his father, and was affirmed. The respondent was represented by Adrian Toomey Solicitor with Jacob and Toomey Solicitors LLP. The following attended on behalf of the Respondent; HR Director, HR Manager, HR Business Partner, Manufacturing Supervisor and Manufacturing Manager, who were all affirmed.
On the first hearing day, I adjourned the hearing on application from the Complainant’s representative as the Complainant was unable to attend, to allow the Complainant attend on another date. On the second hearing day which was held by remote means, I was required to adjourn the hearing midway as the Complainant and his representative experienced IT difficulties and were unable to reconnect to the remote hearing. On the third hearing day there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant.
The parties were advised that the hearing was held in public, and the names of the parties would be included in the decision which would be published on the website of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
All oral evidence, written submissions and supporting documentation presented have been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 26/11/2018 in production/manufacturing. The Complainant resigned from his role on the 22/1/2022 due to the alleged conduct of the Respondent.
On the 16/05/2022, the WRC received a complaint form, pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 alleging that the Complainant was constructively dismissed from his role due to the alleged conduct of his employer.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant failed to attend at the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted comprehensive written submissions refuting the case in full. The Respondent’s representative raised various preliminary issues on the second hearing day. |
Findings and Conclusions:
No appearance was made, or evidence adduced on the third hearing day by or on behalf of the Complainant. I am satisfied that the Complainant’s representative was notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing by way of a hearing letter dated 19/1/2024. I note from the complaint form that the Complainant consented to the WRC issuing all correspondence to his representative, Mr Thomas O'Brien. I note that Mr Thomas O'Brien notified the WRC by way of emails dated 5/3/2024 and 19/1/2024 confirming receipt of the hearing notification letter and indicating that the Complainant would not be appearing at the hearing scheduled for the 7/3/2024 and furthermore that he would not be responding to any further correspondence from the WRC and requested not to be contacted again on the matter. No appearance was made by the Complainant or his representative on the 07/03/2024. I am satisfied that the Complainant’s representative was properly notified of the date, time and place of the hearing and failed to attend. The Complainant or his representative has made no contact with the WRC since the hearing date. I was unable to hear the case in the absence of the Complainant.
In these circumstances I find against the Complainant as no case was presented by him and no evidence moved in support of his case. The Respondent and their representative were in attendance. Accordingly, I find that the complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 as amended is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 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.
I find against the Complainant as no case was presented by him and no evidence moved in support of his case. I find that the complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 as amended is not well founded. |
Dated: 07-06-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Moya de Paor
Key Words:
No appearance |