ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053655
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Orla Cloughley | Donaghy Leisure Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | In person on Day 1 No Appearance on Day 2 | No Appearance on Day 1 or Day 2 |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994 | CA-00065485-001 | 19/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00065485-002 | 19/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00065485-003 | 19/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00065485-004 | 19/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearings: 20/11/2024 and 05/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
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 issued the following complaints on 19.8.2024.
CA-00065485-001 - pursuant to the Maternity Protection Act 1994 CA-00065485-002 - pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 CA-00065485-003 - pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 CA-00065485-004 - pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant sought an adjournment of the first Adjudication hearing on 20.11.2024 on the basis that she was not on notice of the hearing because her representative had been sent the hearing notification but had since come off record. An adjournment was granted to the Complainant in these circumstances. On the second adjudication hearing day, 5.2.2025, the Complainant did not attend. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent |
Findings and Conclusions:
Circumstances of non-attendance of the parties at the second remote Adjudication Hearing on 5.2.2025. Following the adjournment of the Adjudication hearing on 20.11.2024, at the request of the Complainant, the matter was relisted for hearing. The parties were each sent a hearing notification letter by the WRC on 27.11.2024 advising that the Adjudication would be reconvened on 5.2.2025 at 10.30am by way of a remote hearing. The WRC received no response to this letter. The parties were then sent a “request for attendees” letter by the WRC on 27.1.2025. The WRC received no response to this letter. The parties were then sent a Webex remote hearing link letter by the WRC on 29.1.2025. The WRC received no response to this letter. On the morning of the Adjudication hearing on 5.2.2025 the WRC attempted to contact the Complainant by phone at 9.45 am but there was no reply. A second attempt was made at 10.30am, the time when the Adjudication hearing was due to commence. This Complainant answered that call and advised the WRC that she was at work and would be unable to attend the hearing. She requested that the Adjudication hearing be heard the following week instead. She was advised of the necessity to attend the hearing. Following this call, the Complainant did not attend the Adjudication hearing. The remote hearing started at 10.30am and was ended by the Adjudication Officer, because of the non-attendance of either party, at 10.40am. Findings I am satisfied that the parties were on notice that the WRC Adjudication hearing would take place on 5.2.2025 and that the Complainant did not attend. No adjournment application was made by the Complainant in advance of the hearing. It was not until the WRC managed to contact the Complainant by telephone, at the time that the Adjudication hearing was due to commence, that she advised the WRC that she was not able to attend the hearing. The onus of proof, in each of these complaints, is on the Complainant to discharge by way of sworn evidence. In the absence of evidence being given on or on behalf of the Complainant and no satisfactory reason being provided to allow a second adjournment of this adjudication hearing, I find each of these complaints to be not well founded. |
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.
CA-00065485-001 – This complaint is not well founded CA-00065485-002 - This complaint is not well founded CA-00065485-003 - This complaint is not well founded CA-00065485-004 - This complaint is not well founded
|
Dated: 12-02-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
No appearance |