ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048912
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Chloe Hick | MBCC Foods Ireland trading as Costa Coffee |
Representatives | No Appearance | Ms. Roberta Urbon, Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Limited |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00060162-001 | 21/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
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 employment by the Respondent from 28th July 2023 to 27th October 2023. On 21st November 2023, the Complainant referred the present compliant to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent had illegally withheld payment of €1,141.07, in contravention of the impleaded Act. By response, the Respondent stated that a payment had been owing to the Complainant, and that the same had been discharged in due course. As a consequence of the same, they submitted that no further wages were due and owning to the Complainant in the circumstances.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for and finalised on 19th April 2024. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing.
The Respondent attended the hearing accompanied by their legal representative and the witnesses necessary to defend the matter. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant, and no further submission beyond her initial complaint were received.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
As outlined above, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing as scheduled. Having reviewed the file, it is apparent that the Complainant was aware of the time, date and venue of the hearing. In circumstances whereby no application was to adjourn the hearing was received from the Complainant, and no reason as to her absence was received thereafter, the matter proceeded in her absence. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent indicated that they were fully prepared to defend the complaint on its merits, and attended with the necessary witnesses to do so. Nonetheless, they submitted that in the absence of sworn evidence on the part of the Complainant, the complaint must fail. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In circumstances whereby the Complainant did not attend the hearing to prosecute her complaint, I find that the same is 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 find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 23-09-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Non-attendance |