ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051003
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Paulina Szalej | Petrogas Group Limited |
Representatives | Self -represented | Sherwin O'Riordan Solicitors LLP |
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-00062636-001 | 07/04/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Procedure:
In 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.
At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised.
The parties were also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. All participants who gave evidence were sworn in.
At the adjudication hearing, the Respondent confirmed that the name of the Respondent furnished by the Complainant was incorrect and the correct name is Petrogas Group Limited. The Respondent consented to the change of name. The correct name of the Respondent is used in the adjudication decision.
Background:
The Complainant lodged a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 on the 7th of April 2024.
A remote hearing of this claim took place on Monday 2nd of September at 10.30 am. Both parties attended initially but the complainant exited the remote hearing without warning or explanation at approx. 11.15 am. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that She was employed by the respondent from 12/09/2023 and handed in her notice on 04/02/2024 She submits that she is owed holiday pay, bank holiday pay and notice pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that The complainant was employed by the respondent from 12/09/2023 and handed in her notice on 04/02/2024. The respondent disputes the claims and submits that the complainant is not owed any outstanding amounts. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A remote hearing of this claim took place on Monday 2nd of September at 10.30 am. Both parties attended initially but the complainant exited the remote hearing without warning or explanation at approx. 11.15 am. Following this the concierge assigned to the hearing phoned the complainant a number of times to ascertain why she had left the hearing. After numerous calls to the complainant’s number the complainant answered the phoned and stated that her reason for leaving the hearing was that she was supervisor of a deli and her manager had phoned her to inform her that there was an emergency at the deli. The complainant added that she did not at that stage know what the emergency was but confirmed that she would not be re-joining the hearing that day. The complainant was informed that an application could be made for a resumed hearing if the complainant could demonstrate that she had to leave the hearing due to exceptional circumstances and that any such application would have to be supported by documentary evidence. The following day the complainant by email made an application for a resumed hearing. The complainant in providing her reason for exiting the hearing the day before now cited a different than the reason provided on the day of the hearing. The AO also noted that no documentary evidence was provided in support of the application. The application for a resumed hearing failed. The complainant was provided with an opportunity to present their case and after 45 minutes left the hearing without notice or explanation. The complainant was given an opportunity to apply for a resumed hearing, but this application failed for the reasons set out above. In such circumstances I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Dated: 31-10-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|