PWD2423

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00032661 (CA-00042306-007)

BACKGROUND:

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by Grzegorz Walasek (the Appellant) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-000032661, CA-00042306-007) given under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, concerning a complaint against his former employer, Radisson Blue Hotel, Dublin Airport.

The Adjudication Officer held that “the complaint fails”.

A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 13 February 2024.

DECISION:

The complaint was made to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 3 February 2021 and the decision of the Adjudication Officer issued on 5 October 2022. This appeal, together with seven additional linked appeals, was received by the Court on 14 November 2022.

The appeal was scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, 13 February 2024 at 2.30pm at the Labour Court, Lansdowne House, Lansdowne Road, Dublin 4.

A notification letter from the Labour Court dated 19 December 2023 setting out the date, time and location of the hearing was sent to the Appellant by email on 20 December 2023.

On 7 January 2024 the Appellant wrote to the Court by email addressing a number of matters including that:- the address cited on the formal notification letter was not his correct address and he did not accept that correspondence; he no longer agreed to receive correspondence from the Court via electronic mail; he objected to the location of the hearing, as he was living in Poland; he queried if the hearing could be conducted remotely. The Appellant also referred to other matters regarding the standards of judges and bias and objected to receiving correspondence in the week before Christmas, which in his view was an attempt at ruining his holidays.

On 09 January 2024 the Labour Court wrote to the Appellant by letter post (and email). The Labour Court requested that the Appellant confirm his postal address for future correspondence and advised that if he wished to have his hearing heard remotely to send a request via e-mail to info@labourcourt.ie. No request was made to the Court by the Appellant to have his appeal conducted remotely.

On 12 February 2024 a Court Secretary phoned the Appellant about his attendance at the physical hearing scheduled for the following day at 2.30pm. He told the Court Secretary that he had no intention of attending any in person hearing and that it was “obvious” that he required a remote hearing as he resides in Poland. The Appellant confirmed that he had received the correspondence from the Court of January 9, 2024, requesting that he notify the Court if he wished to have the hearing conducted remotely. When asked how he wished to proceed, the Appellant said that he would think about his options and revert by e-mail before close of business that day.

Later the same day the Appellant sent an email to the Court secretary at 4.45pm in which he stated, “As discussed in our prior call, I'm requesting a remote hearing”.

By email the Court Secretary acknowledged receipt of the request at 5.33pm and notified the Appellant that in order to participate in a remote hearing it was necessary to communicate via electronic email to send information and log-in details for the remote hearing. The Court Secretary advised that further details would follow.

After contacting the Respondent to inform them of the request for a remote the Court Secretary sent both parties an email on the morning of 13 February 2024 with details of how to join the meeting remotely. Both parties were instructed to join the hearing 15 minutes prior to the start time of 2.30pm, in case of any technical difficulties.

The Respondent joined the hearing at the designated time 15 minutes prior to the hearing. The Appellant did not join the meeting at the designated time.

The Court Secretary phoned the Appellant and when the Appellant did not reply he left a voicemail message phone to advise that the remote hearing was due to start shortly. No reply was received. The Court Secretary phone again but received no reply.

The hearing commenced as scheduled at 2.30pm. The Court decided to adjourn the hearing briefly to allow the Appellant an opportunity to make contact with the Court. The Appellant did not make contact with the Court.

The Court proceeded to open the appeal.

In coming to the decision to proceed with the hearing the Court took into account the following,

The Court is satisfied that the Appellant was on notice of the time and date of the hearing since 20 December 2023 when a notification letter was sent to him by email. The Appellant acknowledged receipt of that letter addressed to him, albeit he objected to a spelling error in the name of the town where he resides.

The Court notes that the Appellant subsequently withdrew his agreement to receive further correspondence from the Court by email from 7 January 2024.

The Appellant confirmed to the Court Secretary that he received a letter from the Court dated 9 January 2024 advising him how to request a remote hearing. No request for a remote hearing was made by the Appellant on foot of that letter.

The Court is satisfied that the Court Secretary spoke with the Appellant by phone on 12 February 2024 to confirm that the physical hearing of his appeal was scheduled to proceed the following day.

The Court notes that the Appellant raised no objection and expressed no surprise during that conversation to hear that the hearing was scheduled for the following day. Instead, the Appellant confirmed that he would not attend the physical hearing, as he resides in Poland, and that he would revert later that day when he had considered his options.

The Appellant emailed the court later that day to request that the hearing be conducted remotely. His request was granted.

The Court informed the Appellant that in order to facilitate his request for a remote hearing it was necessary to communicate via electronic email to send information and log-in details for the remote hearing. Details for the remote hearing were emailed to the Appellant. The email address was the same address as used by the Appellant in his email correspondence to the Court.

On the day of the hearing the Complainant failed to respond to emails or phones calls from the Court.

The Appellant failed to make any contact the Court on the day of the hearing, despite his request to have the hearing held remotely. The Court received no explanation from the Complainant on the day about his failure to attend the hearing. 

No application was received from the Appellant to postpone the scheduled hearing.

Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules 2022 states: Where the Appellant does not turn up for the hearing and, no satisfactory explanation is given to the Court for the failure of the Appellant to appear, the Court may determine that the appeal has not been upheld.

An appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Act is a de novo appeal where the Court is required to hear the matter afresh. As the Complainant did not attend the Court hearing either physically or remotely to move the appeal, the appeal under the Act must fail.

The Court having considered all of the above did not believe that justice would be served by postponing the hearing. The Court decided to proceed with the hearing as scheduled.

The Complainant was not present to move his appeal therefore the appeal falls.

Decision

The Complainant was not present to move his appeal.

The Complainant’s appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.  Click or tap here to enter text.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
DC	______________________
20 February 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.