ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034325
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Noel Dempsey Ankers | Ecomondis Unlimited |
Representatives | No appearance | Lizel Pollock & Jamie Sheridan |
Complaints:
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-00045535-001 | 28/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00045535-002 | 28/07/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/04/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
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 attended the remote hearing to inquire into the complaints and to give the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. The matter was to be heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant.
Background:
In the complaint form submitted on 28 July 2021 the complainant asserted that he did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice of termination of his employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was represented by the HR Administration Manager. The complaints were rejected by the respondent. The complainant resigned from his employment without notice. The complainant was paid the wages due to the him. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the remote hearing. I note from the case file that the complainant was notified of the date and time of the remote hearing by e-mail, dated 14 February 2022. The e-mail was sent to the e-mail address provided by the complainant on the complaint form. The complainant had consented to the Workplace Relations Commission communicating with him by e-mail and serving notice by e-mail. The invitation to attend the remote WebEx hearing was sent to both parties by e-mail, dated 28 March 2022. The e-mail invitation contained the link to the remote hearing and instructions on joining the hearing, together with contact telephone numbers. I am satisfied that the complainant was informed of the date and time of the hearing. Further, I am satisfied that the complainant was provided with the contact details needed to attend the remote hearing by video and/or telephone. I waited for 15 minutes after the time the hearing was due to commence but there was no appearance by the complainant. Attempts were made to contact the complainant by telephone, but the number was not recognised. As the complainant failed to appear to pursue the complaints I find the complaints are 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-00045535-001 and CA-00045535-002 Complaints brought under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant failed to appear to pursue the complaints. I find the complaints are not well founded. |
Dated: 11th April 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
Key Words:
Pay Pay in lieu of notice |