ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050470
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Javier Pastor Mabille | Caspian B.M.P Limited T/A Caremark Galway |
Representatives | Did not attend | Michael Kinsley BL instructed by Jason O'Sullivan, J.O.S Solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00061992-002 | 05/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00062010-002 | 05/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00062011-002 | 05/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant referred his claims to the Director General of the WRC on 5 March 2024.
An in-person adjudication hearing for the purpose of investigation of the Complainant’s claims was scheduled for 24 July 2024. Correspondence informing the parties of the arrangements for the hearing issued on 29 May 2024.
On 4 July 2024, the Complainant emailed the WRC informing that he would be moving abroad and would not be able to attend a face-to-face hearing. While the WRC explored the possibility of converting the adjudication hearing to a hybrid format, no confirmation of same was issued to the parties and the hearing remained scheduled in person. There was no follow up correspondence from the Complainant.
There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant at the adjudication hearing. The Respondent and its representatives attended the hearing.
In light of the Complainant’s correspondence of 4 July 2024, the Adjudication Officer delayed the commencement of the hearing. The WRC officials attempted to contact the Complainant by email and on the mobile number furnished to the WRC with a view to establishing whether he would attend the hearing in person. A WebEx invitation was also issued to the Complainant by email, and he was invited to attend the hearing remotely in the alternative.
I was satisfied that the Complainant was informed of the date, time and venue of the hearing. In such circumstances, and in the absence of any application to postpone or adjourn the hearing, the matter proceeded in the absence of the Complainant.
There was no communication from the Complainant and no explanation of his non-attendance was received as of the date of the drafting of this decision.
|
CA-00061992-002 under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant at the adjudication hearing to pursue his complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent and its representatives attended the hearing and were ready to present its case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find that the Complainant failed to attend the adjudication hearing as scheduled and failed to present any evidence in support of his complaint. 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 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 complaint to be not well founded. |
CA-00062010-002 - under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant at the adjudication hearing to pursue his complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent and its representatives attended the hearing and were ready to present its case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find that the Complainant failed to attend the adjudication hearing as scheduled and failed to present any evidence in support of his complaint. 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 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 complaint to be not well founded. |
CA-00062011-002 under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant at the adjudication hearing to pursue his complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent and its representatives attended the hearing and were ready to present its case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find that the Complainant failed to attend the adjudication hearing as scheduled and failed to present any evidence in support of his complaint. 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 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 complaint to be not well founded. |
Dated: 16-09-24
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
Non-attendance |