ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048801
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Dariusz Wojcieski | O'Toole Logistic Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00059968-001 | 10/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/06/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015-2021] and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act [1967-2021], 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 their evidence and submissions.
An adjudication hearing was convened in the Carlow WRC Hearing Room on 21/6/2024. At the outset I outlined the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Zalewski V Adjudication Officer and WRC [2021] IESC 24 which the WRC had also done prior to the hearing. I advised that evidence would be taken on oath/affirmation and that fair procedures would apply.
Preliminary:
The WRC notified the Complainant and Respondent by letter of 25 April 2024 that an adjudication hearing was scheduled to take place in the Carlow WRC Hearing Room @ 10.30 am on 21 June 2024. The Respondent attended and was represented by its joint Directors. The Complainant was not in attendance at the scheduled start time of 10.30 am. After waiting until approx 10.45 am I decided to proceed with the adjudication hearing as scheduled.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 10/11/2023. The Complainant stated on the Complaint Form that he was employed by the Respondent between August 2019 and May 2023 and that “after the company closed down”, he did not receive any remuneration for his work “for the entire period”. On the Complaint Form the Complainant ticked the specific complaint that he did not receive his correct redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent disputed and denied the complaint. The Respondent stated that the Complainant had previously left the job without explanation including on 22/3/2023, that he came back on 29/3/2023 and stayed for about two months. The Respondent stated that in or around May 2023 it finished up working for a certain client but that many of its employees continued working for that client including the Complainant. The Respondent stated that it was still trading as sub-contractors without employees. The Respondent stated that the Complainant never raised any issue in 2023 with regard to redundancy or a redundancy payment nor had it any discussions with the Complainant about the matter or about him leaving their employ. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on the 10th November 2023. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. An adjudication hearing was convened on the 21st June 2024. 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 25th April 2024 of the time, date and venue of the adjudication hearing.
In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts [1967-2016] requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00059968-001 For the reasons outlined this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 2nd October 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
Non-Attendance, Redundancy |