ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008516
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | General Assistant | Food Company |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 |
CA-00011072-003 | 01/05/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 |
CA-00011072-004 | 01/05/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 |
CA-00011072-005 | 01/05/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 |
CA-00011072-006 | 01/05/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 |
CA-00011072-001 | 01/05/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 |
CA-00011072-002 | 01/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/11/2017
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 inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as an Assistant from 16th September 2014 to 8th June 2017. He was paid €420.00 per week. He has claimed that he did not receive compensation for Public Holidays, and holidays, also he did not receive the national minimum wage. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at this hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent expressed serious concern that this case was in effect a re-run of a previous case (ADJ 6249) which was adjudicated upon and was the subject of an appeal to the Labour Court. They also stated that the Complainant failed to particularise the complaints despite their request to do so and that of the Adjudication Officer. It is their position that these complaints are vexatious. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that the Complainant failed to particularise these claims as he had agreed to do. I note that the Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. I note correspondence on the file advising both parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing. I note that the Adjudication Officer requested a Clerical Officer of the Service to telephone the Complainant’s Representative on the day of the hearing enquiring why he was not in attendance. The call went to message minder and a message was left requesting that he contact the Workplace Relations Commission. I note that he did not make any contact with the WRC. As no complaints were presented to the hearing I find that these complaints fail for want of prosecution.
|
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.
I have decided that these complaints were not prosecuted. I have decided that these complaints fail for want of prosecution. |
Dated: 1 December 2017
Key Words:
Minimum wage, holidays and Public Holidays |