Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053061
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vishesh Pandita | BGS Security Limited |
Representatives | The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at hearing. | The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at hearing. |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00064947-001 | 24/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/10/2024 & 12/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
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. The hearing was scheduled as an in person hearing to take place in Lansdowne House.
While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Mr Vishesh Pandita as “the Complainant” and to BGS Security Limited as “the Respondent”.
Having waited a reasonable period of time, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant or the Respondent at the hearing on 12/12/2024. I am satisfied that the Complainant and the Respondent were duly notified of the details of the hearing. The Complainant was notified of the hearing details on 15/10/2024 as he had stated he would be returning to India in January and every attempt was made by the WRC to ensure the hearing would take place in December after the first hearing had been adjourned. Accordingly, he was duly notified within 5 days of the adjournment on 10/10/2024 that his complaint had been relisted and would be heard on 12/12/2024.
The Respondent was notified of the details of the hearing by registered post to the registered office of the company as documented on the CRO website. It is noted the company status is defined as “normal” on the CRO website.
Attempts were made to contact the Complainant by phone on the contact number provided by him on the morning of the hearing when he did not turn up. The Complainant answered his phone eventually and it became apparent that he would not be attending the hearing.
Neither party attended. A postponement had not been sought.
Background:
These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 24/07/2024. The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 10/10/2024.
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 25/05/2024 with such employment terminating on or around 15/07/2024.
The Complainant at all material times was employed as security guard. The Complainant worked a 20-hour week for which he was paid €1,032.00 gross per month. The Respondent conducts business in the security industry.
The aforesaid matters were the subject of two hearings. The first hearing scheduled for 10/10/2024 was adjourned as I was not satisfied that the Respondent was not properly on notice of hearing at that time. The second hearing of this matter was scheduled to take place on 12/12/2024 and there was no appearance by the Complainant or the Respondent. Having waited a reasonable period of the time on the day, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. I am satisfied both parties were duly notified of the details of the hearing. A postponement had not been sought.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00064947-001 There was no appearance by the Complainant at the adjudication hearing. I am satisfied the Complainant was notified in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. There was no application for a postponement submitted in the weeks or days preceding the hearing.
The Complainant, when contacted on the morning of the hearing at 10.15AM by phone call, appeared to have been disturbed from his sleep by the WRC case officer who phoned him to ascertain whether or not he would be attending the hearing of his complaint.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that he had no intention of attending the hearing due to commence at 10.00AM to make his case.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00064947-001 The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at hearing.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00064947-001 There was no appearance by either party at the hearing. I am satisfied the parties were notified in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaints would be held. There was no application for a postponement submitted in the weeks or days preceding the hearing. I have waited a more than reasonable period of time before drafting this decision just in case either party contacted the WRC. I am satisfied that neither party made contact either immediately before the hearing, during the hearing or in the intervening period since the hearing. I find the Complainant’s non-attendance at hearing to pursue this complainant constitutes an abandonment of same.
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.
CA-00064947-001 Based on the circumstances outlined above and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I decide this complaint is not well-founded.
|
Dated: 13th January 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
No appearance by either party; |