ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00051752
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Former Worker | A Retailer |
Representatives |
|
|
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 | CA-00063505 | 25th Feb 2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Date of Hearing: 18/09/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me, to present their submissions together with any information relevant to the dispute and to question each other’s submissions.
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.
|
Summary of Workers 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 Employer’s Case:
The Respondent denied and refuted the complaints including that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent stated that it ran a good company, that it provided staff training and interacted with staff on a professional basis. The Respondent stated that it unsuccessfully endeavoured to work through various issues with the Complainant whilst she was employed but that ultimately the Complainant was in agreement with the decision that she leave the company. The Respondent further stated that the Complainant had not particularised any complaint within the terms of the Employment Equality Act [1998-2022]. |
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 I must conclude that the within dispute is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.
|
Recommendation:
CA-00055281-001 Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. In light of my conclusion I decide not to make any recommendation. |
Dated: 29th May 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
Non Attendance |