ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044561
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Michelle Hynes | Dv8 Fashion |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00055281-002 | 25/02/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015-2021] and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act [1998-2022], following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to present any relevant evidence.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant and the Respondent were notified by letter from the WRC of 10 and 9 August 2023 respectively, that a remote adjudication hearing was scheduled to take place on 18 September 2023 at 10am. At 10am the Respondent was in attendance but the Complainant was not. I checked with the WRC Concierge Officer who unsuccessfully tried to make contact with the Complainant. After waiting until 10.20am I decided to proceed with the adjudication hearing as scheduled.
The Respondent was unrepresented and was sworn in at the commencement of the hearing.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated on her Complaint Form that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 19/1/2023 and that her employment ended on 10/2/2023. On the Complaint Form, the Complainant outlined various difficulties she had encountered in the workplace including that she was never given or signed any contract, that she was dismissed without notice and in relation to a disabled fitting room. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denied and refuted the complaints. In that regard the Respondent stated that it ran a good company, that it provided staff training and interacted with staff on a professional basis. The Respondent further stated that the Complainant had not particularised any complaint within the terms of the Employment Equality Act [1998-2022]. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on the 25th February 2023. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. An adjudication hearing was convened on the 18th September 2023. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing. Having checked the file I am satisfied the Complainant was properly notified by letter dated 10th August 2023 of the time, date and venue of the adjudication hearing.
In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
Decision:
CA-00055281-002 Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act [1998-2022] requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act. For the reasons outlined this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 29th May 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
Non Attendance |