ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049289
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Dawid Czajka | Fedex |
Representatives |
| Emma Quinn Eversheds Sutherland |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00060527-001 | 13/12/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I was assigned the task of hearing this matter and making all the relevant enquiries.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred a complaint under one Act - The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997:
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing. Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 13th of December 2023 by way of a workplace relations complaint form.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 12th of March 2024 - and sent to the address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that he was not paid Sunday Premium. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent had representation at this hearing. The Respondent indicated that this matter had been compromised. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As noted, the matter was listed for hearing and the Employer legal representative attended to confirm that this matter had settled. The Complainant did not attend and therefore did not formally withdraw this matter. A subsequent email sent to the Complainant requested that he might folmally withdraw this claim so that the3 file could be closed. This yielded no communication. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00060527-001 - The Complainant did not attend and did not move this application or withdraw this application. The complaint is therefore not week founded.
|
Dated: 27th May 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words: