ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050432
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Eric Mulvey | Total Fire Protection Ltd |
Representatives | N/A | Vivien Barror, Barror and Co. Solicitors, instructing Mr. Aaron Shearer BL. |
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-00061837-001 | 28/02/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/06/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and/or 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.
Background:
On 28 February 2024, the Complainant filed a Complaint Form with the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) in which he alleged, inter alia, that he had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. A Hearing was scheduled for 5 June 2024.
In a letter from the WRC dated 12 April 2024, the Complainant was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 5 June 2024. The same letter set out the procedure regarding postponement requests.
On 4 June 2024, the day before the Hearing, the Complainant informed the WRC that his legal representation could not attend the Hearing and he sought an adjournment. The WRC advised the Complainant that late applications to postpone a hearing must be made to the Adjudication Officer, at the Hearing, as scheduled.
On 5 June 2024, the day of the Hearing, the Complainant called and emailed the WRC to indicate that he could not attend the Hearing for medical reasons. The WRC emailed the Complainant and referred him to the WRC Postponement Guidelines, in particular:
“Requests under Postponement Process 2 below are considered in the context of a test of “exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons” and will not generally be granted unless proper evidence is provided with the completed postponement application form together with an explanation of how the test is met.”
The Complainant was asked to provide evidence in support of his postponement application, together with the completed postponement application and an explanation as to how the abovementioned test was met, by no later than 5pm on 10 June 2024.
On 6 June 2024, the Complainant provided his postponement application, along with a photo. The Complainant agreed that this information could be shared with the Respondent. This correspondence was duly shared with the Respondent on 14 June 2024.
On 17 and 19 June 2024, the Respondent emailed the WRC and queried the veracity of the photo provided by the Complainant, alleging that it had been downloaded from the internet.
Copies of the correspondence was shared between the Parties. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant failed to attend the Hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was in attendance at the Hearing. The Respondent was represented by Vivien Barror of Barror & Co. Solicitors, instructing Mr. Aaron Shearer BL. Two witnesses also attended on behalf of the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was on full notice of the Hearing. I am also satisfied that the Complainant was given the opportunity to make a postponement application pursuant to the WRC Postponement Guidelines. I have considered the Complainant’s postponement application and supporting evidence, as well as the Respondent’s response to the same. By way of evidence, the Complainant has provided only an undated photo which appears to be available on the internet. Therefore, I find that the Complainant has failed to adduce “proper evidence” to meet the “exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons” test for a postponement application. Therefore, the application is refused. Consequently, I find that the Complainant failed to attend the Hearing as scheduled and failed to present any evidence in support of his complaint. In the circumstances, there is no evidence that the Respondent contravened the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 as amended. I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed and therefore 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 complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed and therefore this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 27th June 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015, Non-attendance. |