ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00025017

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  12/09/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard

Procedure:

This complaint was referred under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015 to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘WRC’) on 21st October 2019.  Following delegation to me by the Director General, I inquired into this complaint and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any relevant evidence.  This complaint was scheduled for hearing on seven occasions.  On the first four occasions, the matter was listed for a remote hearing and adjournments were granted to the Respondent.  On the fifth occasion the matter was listed for a face-to-face hearing in Ennis on 12th September 2023.  When the Complainant did not attend, the matter was relisted for a remote hearing on 14th May 2024.  Whilst the Complainant attended at the hearing, he indicated he was unable to partake owing to work commitments and I granted a final adjournment.  

The matter was rescheduled for a remote hearing on 12th September 2024.  A Representative from The HR Suite attended on behalf of the Respondent.  The Managing Director was in attendance prepared to give evidence and meet the complaint.  There was no attendance by the Complainant.  As the hearing was commencing, this Adjudication Officer received an email from the Complainant sent to the Postponements Section of the WRC the night beforehand at 10.40pm stating: “I am sorry at this late stage to seek a postponement as I have a Hospital appointment tomorrow morning.”  Before excusing the Respondent, I indicated that I would allow a week for the Complainant to provide vouching and thereafter, would afford the Respondent a period of time to consider any vouching received before deciding whether to exercise my discretion to schedule another hearing. 

The Postponements Section requested vouching of the hospital appointment from the Complainant.  I also wrote to him on 16th September 2024 stating that in order to decide whether to exercise my discretion to schedule another hearing, more detail and vouching of the hospital appointment was required within one week thereof including (1) the date on which he was notified of the hospital appointment; (2) vouching of the hospital appointment and (3) the reason/s for the late application for a postponement.  In circumstances where no further contact has been made by or on behalf of the Complainant or vouching received to date, I have proceeded to issue my decision herein.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant referred a complaint of unfair dismissal under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 to the WRC on 21st October 2019 but did not attend at the hearing to pursue same.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

A Managing Director from the Respondent was in attendance and prepared to meet this complaint.  Detailed legal submissions and supporting documentation had also been submitted in its defence.

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to this complaint in accordance with requisite statutory provisions.  Complainants are required to attend the hearing of their complaint/s before the WRC to pursue same.  Even where the burden of proof rests with the Respondent in the instance of an unfair dismissal complaint, it is still necessary to hear from a complainant in terms of confirming various details including the remedy being sought and mitigation of any financial loss.  The Complainant emailed the WRC at a very late stage the night before this hearing to seek a postponement on the basis that he had a hospital appointment but to date, has not provided any vouching of same as requested.  The Complainant would have had prior notice of any hospital appointment such that an application for a postponement could have been made in a timelier manner.  This is the third consecutive time that he has been unavailable to proceed with a hearing of his complaint.  I have considered the High Court Judgement of Humphries, J. in Sam Dennigan and Company -v- O’Connell and The Workplace Relations Commission [2016] IEHC 665, confirming that the decision as to whether to reschedule a hearing is a matter for the discretion of an Adjudication Officer depending on what is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances.  Considering the inconvenience and cost to the Respondent and failure by the Complainant to vouch his third non-attendance, I am not acceding to his application to schedule a further hearing date. 

I find the Complainant’s non-attendance at this hearing to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable and constitutes an abandonment of same.  Accordingly, I find this complaint not to be well-founded.

Dated:   14-10-24

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard

Key Words:  Request for further hearing following non-attendance by Complainant – discretion of the Adjudication Officer depending on what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances - see Sam Dennigan and Company -v- O’Connell and The Workplace Relations Commission [2016] IEHC 665