PWD2245

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No(s) ADJ-00028904 CA-00038384-001

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 14 October 2022 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:



DETERMINATION :

This is an appeal by Jana Mironova (represented by Vadim Karpenko of First National Consulting and Legal Service) against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer ADJ-00028904 dated 9 February 2021 in a complaint made by Ms Mironova under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 against her employer Wonderfoods Unlimited Company (represented by Hugh Hegarty, Management Support Services).

The Appeal was lodged with the Court on 23 March 2021. The case was scheduled for hearings on 10 September 2021, 01 December 2021 and 8 July 2022, but postponed on each occasion for different reasons.

A hearing of the Labour Court was held on 14 October 2022.

The Appellant and the Appellant’s representative failed to attend the Court at the allocated time of 10.00am on 14 October 2022 to progress the appeal. The Court sat to hear the appeal and deemed that in the absence of any contact from the appellant or her representative, the appeal could not proceed. A short time later, the Appellant’s representative attended at the Labour Court. The Court reconvened to hear his explanation as to why he did not attend the hearing at the allotted time. He explained that he was delayed in traffic, which resulted in his attending the Court at 10.02am rather than the allotted time of 10.00am.

Having considered that matter, the Court decided to allow the appeal hearing to proceed.

Mr Karpenko proceeded to make an application to the Court for a postponement of the hearing on medical grounds. He said that his client had a medical appointment that morning, which she was only advised of the previous evening. In support of his application, Mr Karpenko provided the Court with various documentation. No details of a medical appointment for 14 October 2022 were provided to the Court, as part of the documentation submitted.

The Court is aware that a previous application for a postponement of the hearing was made by Mr Karpenko, on behalf of the Appellant, and submitted to the Court on Wednesday 12 October 2022. That application for a postponement was declined by the Court. Mr Karpenko was notified that that application was refused due to the lack of any supporting documentation.

Rule 81 of the Labour Court Rules state that the Court may postpone or adjourn an hearing of a case on such terms as it considers appropriate. Having considered the application for a postponement made on the morning of the hearing, the Court decided to refuse the application on the grounds that insufficient and inconsistent supporting documentation was submitted to the Court such an application.

An appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Act is a de novo appeal where the Court is required to hear the matter afresh. As the Appellant did not attend the Court hearing to pursue her appeal, her accordingly fails.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer that the complaint is not well founded is upheld.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
DC	______________________
24 Oct 2022	Deputy Chairman