ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054106
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ingars Zutis | Dixon Transport |
Representatives |
| Mary Paula Guinness B.L. instructed by B. Vincent Hoey & Co LLP. |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00066040-001 | 17/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00066083-001 | 18/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00066090-001 | 18/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint 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:
These complaints were first scheduled for a hearing on May 28th, 2025 and all parties were in attendance. However, the complainant had requested an interpreter who did not attend the hearing. While the hearing proceeded, and the complainant made no reference to the absent interpreter during it, he subsequently complained about this and the case was re-scheduled for a hearing |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the resumed hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s legal representatives attended both hearings and had made written submissions. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The background to the case is set out above. While the complainant had applied for a further adjournment of the second hearing to brief a legal representative this was refused in accordance with the WRC postponement guidelines. The complaints were received on September 17th 2004 and he had adequate opportunity to arrange professional representation at any time since then. Therefore I find as follows. A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging breaches of the above statutes and it was referred to me for investigation. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the complainant consented to receiving correspondence by email and was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. I conclude that he was fully on notice of the 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 complaints are 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 complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
For the reasons set out above I do not uphold Complaints CA-00066040-001 or 66090-001 under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and Complaint CA-00066083-001 is not well-founded. |
Dated: 12-08-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
No Show by complainant. |