ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009706
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | An Institute of Technology |
Representatives | Hanley & Lynch Solicitors | Pembroke Solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00012709-001 | 21/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00012709-002 | 21/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00012709-003 | 21/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
On 21 July 2017, the complainant made complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complaints were scheduled for adjudication on 22 March 2018. On the evening of 21 March 2018, the complainant’s solicitor sent an email to the Workplace Relations Commission, which stated “We agreed terms of settlement with the respondent’s solicitors by phone today. They are drafting a settlement agreement which we await. The matter therefore will not be proceeding tomorrow.” It was clear that these complaints were not withdrawn nor had an adjournment request been made, accordingly, as the Adjudicator assigned to this case, I attended the hearing as scheduled. At the time the adjudication was scheduled to commence, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant or the respondent and after waiting some time to accommodate a late arrival, it was clear that neither party would be in attendance. As I had not received formal withdrawal of the complaints, I wrote to the complainant’s solicitor on 4 April 2018 and asked for confirmation of the withdrawal of the complaints. I did not receive a reply. On 18 April 2018 I wrote to the complainant’s solicitor and sought confirmation of withdrawal of the complaints no later than by 25 April 2018. On 24 April 2018, the Workplace Relations Commission received an email from the complainant’s solicitor, which read “Since our last correspondence [the respondent] have still not yet signed the terms and conditions which they proposed. I am therefore not yet in a position to confirm withdrawal of the complaint.” |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the adjudication to prosecute their case. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the adjudication. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The case was scheduled for hearing on 22 March 2018. Notwithstanding the complainant’s solicitor’s email on 21 March 2018, to the Workplace Relations Commission, stating that “The matter therefore will not be proceeding tomorrow”, I am satisfied that the decision on whether a case proceeds on the day of the scheduled hearing rests with the Workplace Relations Commission and/or the Adjudicator assigned to the case by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission. I am satisfied that the Workplace Relations Commission have not been asked for an adjournment of this case ahead of the hearing. I am satisfied that several attempts were made to get confirmation of the withdrawal of the complaints from the complainant’s solicitor. However, confirmation of the withdrawal of the complaints has not been giving. I find that no adjournment was approved by the Workplace Relations Commission prior to the hearing. I find it unreasonable that the complainant did not attend the scheduled hearing on the date set by the Workplace Relations Commission. I find it unreasonable that the complaints now remain open in the circumstances. Therefore, in accordance with Section 41(4) 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. Accordingly, I decide that the claims 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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00012709-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 The complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissal Act is not well founded as the complainant failed to attend the hearing to prosecute this claim. CA-00012709-002 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 The complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is not well founded as the complainant failed to attend the hearing to prosecute this claim. CA-00012709-003 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 The complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is not well founded as the complainant failed to attend the hearing to prosecute this claim. |
Dated: 20th June, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:James Kelly
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissals Acts - Payment of Wages Act - failed to attend the hearing |