ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018071

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A retail worker	A retail chain

Representatives

Did not attend.

Ursula Sherlock, Ibec.

Complaint(s):

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-00023307-001	16/11/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00023307-002	16/11/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00023307-003	16/11/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00023307-004	16/11/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00023307-005	16/11/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/01/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a driver from 02/05/2018 to 12/06/2018.

No details of wage rates were provided on the complaint submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 16/11/2018.

The Complainant has listed 3 complaints under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and 2 complaints under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend the hearing.

Correspondence in relation to the arrangements for the hearing were sent in a timely fashion and correctly addressed.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent had no complaint to answer in the absence of the Complainant.

Findings and Conclusions:

In the absence of the Complainant I have no option but to decide that the complaints are not well founded and therefore fail.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

In the absence of the Complainant all complaints fail.

Dated: 7th March 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan

Key Words: