ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052399
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Darren Woods | Atif Ashfaq, trading as Gort Fone Repairs |
Representatives | No attendance on 30/10/2024 | In person |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00064175-001 | 19/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 6/8/2024 and 30/10/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This is a redundancy complaint to which the Respondent, the former employer of the Complainant contends that a transfer of undertaking occurred and that there was no dismissal for reason of redundancy |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s complaint was that he worked for the Respondent until the Respondent closed his phone business on 4.6.2024, making the Complainant redundant. The Complainant attended the first Adjudication hearing on 6 August 2024. He confirmed that he was now working in the same shop premises for a different employer who is now operating the phone business that was formerly owned by the Respondent. The Complainant stated that he was distracted and stressed during this short remote Adjudication hearing because he was at work and could not concentrate on the adjudication process, which he was attending via his mobile phone. He agreed with the Adjudicator’s suggestion that the adjudication hearing be adjourned, both to put the Respondent on proper notice of the hearing and to allow the Complainant to get advice on whether his employment ended on 4 June 2024 or whether a transfer of undertaking occurred on that date. The Complainant failed to attend the second Adjudication hearing on 30 October 2024 and several attempts to email and the telephone the Complainant by WRC staff were unsuccessful. There was no application for an adjournment made by the Complainant in advance of this date and no explanation for his non-attendance was provided either before or after the hearing. The Complainant was emailed requesting an explanation for his non-attendance and or confirmation as to whether he wished to proceed or not. No reply was received. The Adjudicator waited three days before issuing this decision. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended the Adjudication hearing on 30 October 2024 and under affirmation, he apologised for his non- attendance on the first hearing date, 6 August 2024 (he explained that he was not on notice because the postal address that was used for WRC correspondence was the shop premises that he had ceased trading from on 4 June 2024.) He gave evidence that he was a sole trader (registered in his name, Atif Ashfaq) and his phone business ceased operating on 4 June 2024, at which point the business was taken over by a third party who now employs the Complainant. He stated that on this transfer the new owner took over all the assets and liabilities of his business and that a transfer of undertaking occurred on 4 June 2024. He did not make the Complainant redundant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant failed to attend the Adjudication hearing on 30 October 2024. No sworn evidence was provided by the Complainant on the first Adjudication hearing on 6 August 2024. On that date it became necessary for the hearing to be adjourned for three reasons. First because the Respondent was not on notice of the Adjudication hearing. Second, because the Complainant was attending the remote hearing at the same time as he was serving customers within his current employers shop and third, because the Complainant needed to get advice on whether a transfer of undertaking had taken place on 4.6.2024 which might mean that no redundancy arose on that date but it would mean that his employment with his current employer would go back until 1 December 2018. The Complainant was put on notice of the second (30.10.24) Adjudication hearing by WRC email, which the Complainant acknowledged and replied to the WRC by email and spoke to a WRC staff member on the day before the hearing confirming that he would attend, therefore I am satisfied that the Complainant was on the notice of the second hearing date. When the Complainant failed to attend the hearing on 30.102024, both the WRC staff member and the Adjudicator attempted to contact the Complainant by phone and both found that his phone number was not operative. I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the hearing and that he failed to attend and that he did not seek an adjournment of the hearing, did not respond to WRC emails and was not contactable by phone on the morning of the hearing. In the absence of any sworn evidence being provided by the Complainant in this matter I find that the complaint was not prosecuted and is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act
This complaint is not well founded |
Dated: 08-11-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
Redundancy - Non attendance by Complainant |