ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032467
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Andrei Bernea | One Way Street Limited |
Representatives | Kevin O'Gorman & Co. Solicitors | Thomas Ryan Peninsula |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00043005-001 | 11/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00043005-002 | 11/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00043005-004 | 11/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00043005-005 | 11/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00043005-006 | 11/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00043005-007 | 11/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00043005-008 | 11/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00043005-009 | 11/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00043005-010 | 11/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2023 and 16/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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 hearing was initially scheduled for 18 September 2023 and both the Respondent as well as the Complainant were in attendance along with their representatives. As the Complainant had not furnished any submissions in advance of the hearing however, a decision was made to adjourn the matter. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled for 16 November 2023. The Respondent along with their representative attended on the day. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant however.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a kitchen porter by the Respondent from 6 January 2019 and was paid a salary of €404 per week. Further to his employment ending on 27 December 2020, he made a number of complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission that his employment rights had been breached. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, the Respondent did not give evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00043005-001: As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00043005-002: As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00043005-004: As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00043005-005: As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00043005-006: As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00043005-007: As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00043005-008: As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, I find that he was not unfairly dismissed CA-00043005-009: As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, I find that he was not discriminated against. CA-00043005-010: As the Complainant did not attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence, I find that he was not unfairly dismissed. |
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.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00043005-001: I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00043005-002: I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00043005-004: I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00043005-005: I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00043005-006: I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00043005-007: I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00043005-008: I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00043005-009: I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against for the reasons set out above. CA-00043005-010: I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed for the reasons set out above. |
Dated: 13th March 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|