ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050237
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Miguel Angelo Lima Antunes | Thimblemill Investments Ltd t/a O Connors Centra Loughrea |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00061540-001 | 13/02/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following 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 hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. The complainant did not attend and his representative attended. Mr Jarlath O’Connor gave evidence under affirmation for the respondent.
Background:
The complainant submitted that he was unfairly dismissed. The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the respondent’s name was not correct and requested amendment of the name of the respondent.
The respondent denied the complaints and Mr O’Connor under affirmation submitted that the complainant was a wonderful young man and that unfortunately they were left with no alternative but to let him go because business was quiet and they have not hired anybody since then. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend and his representative advised that he was unable to get time off work. No adjournment was sought.
In the complaint form the complainant set out that he was unfairly dismissed after one month working with the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 13/02/2024 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 29/04/2024 and there was no appearance by the complainant. The complainant’s representative did attend and submitted that the complainant could not get time off work to attend. The complainant’s representative confirmed that the complainant was not seeking an adjournment. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend.
The respondent requested an amendment to the name of the respondent without objection and I have, therefore, amended same taking into consideration that parties are not prejudiced.
The complainant submits on their complaint form that he was dismissed from his employment and the respondent denied the complaint. In reaching my conclusion I have carefully evaluated the evidence adduced and taken account of submissions made.
I note that the complainant did not attend the hearing and did not give any direct evidence to support his complaint. I note Mr O’Connor’s credible evidence that there was no longer work available for the complainant and that staff who left have not been replaced.
In the circumstances, I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed, and I dismiss the complaint.
|
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.
In the circumstances, I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed, and I dismiss the complaint. |
Dated: 24th June 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal, complainant did not attend |