ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055749
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Haider Riaz | Signature Portfolio Limited |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00067886-001 | 04/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00067886-002 | 04/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00067886-003 | 04/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00067886-004 | 04/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00067886-005 | 04/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00067886-006 | 04/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00067886-007 | 04/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 4 December 2024 the Complainant referred 7 complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission as listed above. In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 21 May 2025 in order that I might inquire into the complaints and afford the parties an opportunity to present to me any evidence they deemed relevant to the complaints.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant; neither was there any attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent and neither party provided written submissions.
Background:
In his complaint form, the Complainant outlined that he was employed as a Chef de Partie with the Respondent from 18 January 2024 to 30 June 2024. He alleged that he was not paid wages due to him, and that the Respondent breached the Organisation Of Working Time by not paying him a Sunday premium rate, by not properly compensating him for annual leave, by not providing him with proper daily breaks, by requiring him to work in excess of the maximum permitted hours and by not paying premium rates for work on Public Holidays. The Complainant also alleged that he was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent operates in the Accommodation and Food Services. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining its position. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant, neither did the Complainant provide a written submission to support his allegations. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining its position. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00067886-001 On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the parties for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of either party at the hearing. I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for either party to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain the absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint 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, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00067886-002 On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the parties for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of either party at the hearing. I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for either party to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain the absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint 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, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00067886-003 On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the parties for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of either party at the hearing. I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for either party to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain the absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint 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, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00067886-004 On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the parties for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of either party at the hearing. I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for either party to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain the absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint 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, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00067886-005 On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the parties for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of either party at the hearing. I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for either party to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain the absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint 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, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00067886-006 On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the parties for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of either party at the hearing. I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for either party to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain the absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint 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, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00067886-007 On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the parties for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of either party at the hearing. I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for either party to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain the absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint 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, I must conclude that the within complaint is 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.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
CA-00067886-001 For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
CA-00067886-002 For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
CA-00067886-003 For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
CA-00067886-004 For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
CA-00067886-005 For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
CA-00067886-006 For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
CA-00067886-007 For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and accordingly I make no recommendation.
|
Dated: 03-06-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|