ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048022
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mark Donnelly | Iarnrod Eireann / Irish Rail |
Representatives | Des Courtne, SIPTU | Niall Flynn, Industrial Relations Executive |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00059115-001 | 29/09/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00059115-002 | 29/09/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/01/2024 & 10/06/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
Procedure:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 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.
The Complainant was represented by Des Courtney, SIPTU accompanied by Paul Cullen.
The Respondent was represented by Niall Flynn, Industrial Relations Executive, accompanied by Sharon O’Rourke, Industrial Relations Manager.
Background:
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has made, and continues to make, unlawful deductions from his wages in contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (the Act). The Respondent rejects the complaint. The first hearing in this case was scheduled for 15 January 2024. The Complainant did not attend the hearing. The Complainant’s representative attended the hearing. The Respondent attended the hearing. The hearing was rescheduled for 10 June 2024. The Complainant did not attend the rescheduled hearing. The Complainant’s representative attended the rescheduled hearing. The Respondent attended the rescheduled hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the rescheduled hearing into his complaint. I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and location of the rescheduled hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent presented a written submission in advance of the rescheduled hearing. The Respondent attended the rescheduled hearing and was available to provide its evidence in relation to the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As part of my investigation, I am obliged to hold a hearing. There was no appearance by the Complainant at the rescheduled hearing or explanation for his absence. In these circumstances I conclude the investigation and I find that this complaint is not well founded. |
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.
I declare this complaint to be not well founded. |
Dated: 10th June 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
Key Words:
No attendance by the Complainant |