ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054931
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Razvan Popan | Al Read Electrical |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00066950-001 | 25/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 25 October 2024 the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following the referral of the case to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 6 January 2024.
The Complainant did not attend the hearing, however, Mr. Patrick Connolly and Mr. Paul Read attended on behalf of the Respondent.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a General Operative with the Respondent from 29 September 2024. He submitted a complaint that he was victimised for taking an action set out in section 74 of the Employment Equality Acts.
The Respondent is an external lighting company. The Respondent denied the allegations set out in the complaint.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint form, the Complainant outlined that after he made a complaint about bullying in the workplace with an employee, his manager started complaining about what time he was leaving the job or what time he came to work. He outlined that for more than a year he didn’t have any complaints about his hours and that he stayed in the job despite having experience in other fields.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was present and prepared to outline its’ position at the hearing but in the context that there was no Complainant present to move the complaint this proved unnecessary. However, the Respondent advised the Adjudication Officer that after lodging his complaint, the Complainant went on annual leave but never returned to the employment and never contacted to advise that he was resigning. The Respondent simply never heard further from the Complainant. The Respondent advised that it believed the matters could have been resolved internally, had the Complainant returned to work following his period of leave.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Although the Respondent was present on the day of the hearing, the Complainant did not attend.
In those circumstances I confirmed that the notice of the hearing had issued to the Complainant in advance of the hearing in December. I noted that the correspondence containing details of the hearing was issued to the Complainant to the address provided on his complaint form and that the notice was also copied to him by email to an email address provided by him.
On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the Complainant for in excess of 20 minutes and I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for him to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain his absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
As no further communication was received at the time of finalising this decision and in the context that I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the arrangements for the hearing and in the absence of any explanation for his non-attendance and the absence of evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
|
Decision:
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 outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded and I decide accordingly.
|
Dated: 14.01.2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|