ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053362
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Maciej Turek | Neville Stanley Tractor & 4x4 |
Representatives | No Appearance | Self |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00050591-004 | 11/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00050591-005 | 11/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00050591-007 | 11/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00050591-008 | 11/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00050591-009 | 11/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00050591-010 | 11/05/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, 1969 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:
There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Complainant. The Respondent applied to have the matters struck out.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Complainant. I am satisfied that the Complainant was fully aware of the date time and venue for the hearing. I am also satisfied that the Complainant had received the hearing link. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent applied to have the complaints struck out for want of prosecution. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Complainant. I am satisfied that the Complainant was fully aware of the date time and venue for the hearing. I am also satisfied that the Complainant had received the hearing link. The Complainant corresponded with the WRC via email on 2nd April last indicating that he did not intend to appear at the hearing today as he did not want to see the Respondent and because he had to work. The Complainant if wants to have his complaints dealt with at hearing, has an obligation to attend the hearing and give evidence in relation to the complaints submitted. He failed to do that. On that basis I find that all of the complaints are not well founded and accordingly fail. |
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.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA – 00050591 – 004- The complaint fails. CA – 00050591 – 005- The complaint fails. CA – 00050591 – 007- The complaint fails. CA – 00050591 – 008- The complaint fails. CA – 00050591 – 009- The complaint fails CA -00050591 – 010 – The complaint fails.
|
Dated: 04/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll
Key Words:
No Appearance. Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, Terms. |