ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR-SC-00002372
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | General Operative | Restaurant |
Representatives |
| Jerry Lucey, Blended HR |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | IR - SC - 00002372 | 19/03/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 05/06/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s). A Spanish interpreter was also present at the hearing.
A friend of the worker’s attended the hearing and requested an adjournment as the complainant was out of the country. Her visa had expired, and she returned home in early March 2024 and would not be in a position to return until sometime in September 2024. The worker would have expected a remote hearing.
Background:
The worker was employed as a general operative and assigned to the waiting staff. She believes that she was constructively dismissed by the employer. The issue arose when her visa was due to expire, and the employer would not commit to supporting her application for a General Employment Permit. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker expected to have a remote hearing and so was seeking an adjournment. She was out of the country awaiting a visa. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer was not supporting an adjournment request. The employer was present along with a representative and prepared to engage in the hearing in relation to this dispute. The employer should not have to incur additional expense due to the failure of the worker to make a timely and proper postponement application. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I did not grant the adjournment application as I was satisfied that the worker was properly on notice of the hearing and that it was to be in person. No application for a postponement was submitted until the day before the hearing.
The worker did not provide any reasons why she did not seek a postponement which would be aligned to the WRC postponement guidelines which were notified to the worker. In that context I decided not to grant the adjournment |
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 to provide any information in relation to this dispute, I am unable to make a recommendation in favour of the worker.
Dated: 18-06-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Constructive dismissal. Postponement application. |