ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053481
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Alan O Dwyer | Dundrum Transport |
Representatives | Not present | Owner |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00065467-001 | 16/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/10/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:
The Complainant was employed as a HGV Driver from 9/1/23 to 20/3/24 and claimed he was due 8 days unpaid wages and possibly some holiday pay. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A Complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by Alan O Dwyer on 16/8/24 alleging that his former employer, Dundrum Transport contravened the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to him. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A Hearing for that purpose was held on 30/10/24. The parties were notified of the Hearing on 2/10/24. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the Hearing. The Complainant, subsequent to the Hearing, advised the WRC he could not get time off work for the Hearing. No application for a postponement was made by the Complainant in advance of the Hearing. I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the Hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and he had sufficient notice to organise his affairs to attend the Hearing or to request a postponement. In these circumstances I must conclude that the within complaint is not well founded and I decide accordingly. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was present at the Hearing and disputed the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the Complainant was not present at the Hearing to present his complaint I deem his complaint not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I decide that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 15th November 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Non appearance of the Complainant. |