ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019676
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Factory |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00026155-001 | 08/02/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with 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:
The Complainant is a Lithuanian Factory Worker, represented by his Solicitor. He submitted a complaint of Unfair Dismissal on 8 February 2019 in respect of a stated date of dismissal of 17 July 2018. In response to the WRC observations on time limits, the complainants Solicitor had made a Preliminary Submission seeking an extension of time limits on “reasonable cause “on 15 February 2019. He made a subsequent request for an Interpreter which was approved. Both sides received postponements, the complainant in respect of an illness accompanied by a Medicate Statement and the Respondent for annual leave purposes. On 14 August 2019, both parties were notified that the case was relisted for 1 pm on $ October 2019. There were no requests for postponements prior to that date. The Complainants Solicitor sought an adjournment at the commencement of the hearing as the complainant had not made an appearance. He submitted that he had spoken to the complainant’s sister on the phone who at first was unsure of the reason for the complainant’s non-attendance. There was then a further mention of the complainant not being notified of the date of hearing and a possibility that he may be ill. The representative qualified this by submitting that he had seen the complainant in the past days and this was re-iterated by a Company Human Resource representative. The Complainants Representative made a valiant address to secure a further postponement in the case which was opposed by the Respondent. I inquired as to the basis of the grounds for this request and learned that it was to give him another chance. This was also opposed by the Respondent. The Complainants representative acknowledged that he had written to the complainant at his habitual address to inform him of the approaching date of the hearing in his case. I suggested that I would wait at the hearing site for the complainant to attend for hearing and this was supported by the Respondent but ruled out by the complainant’s representative as the complainant was subsisting on social welfare and due to his sister’s attendance at Adult Education, had not means of travel on the day. |
Summary of Respondent ’s Case:
The Respondent disputed the claim and submitted a Preliminary Argument on time limits and the substantive case of Unfair Dismissal. the Respondent submitted that the complainant had not been dismissed, but rather he had abandoned his employment. The Respondent presented in the company of two Human Resource practitioners. Considering the non-attendance of the complainant, the Respondent sought that the case be struck out. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant made no appearance in the case. His claim arose from a period of employment 2011-2018. His complaint form dated February 2, 2019 indicated that he had been dismissed on 17 July 2018 and had not worked since his dismissal. The Complainants representative sought to address the Preliminary issue of the claim on time limits, prior to making an extensive submission for a postponement. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have been asked to consider a last-minute application for a postponement on non-specific grounds. As both parties have already received a postponement in this case, albeit for different reasons. I can safely conclude that both parties are au fait with the request for postponements procedures at the WRC. This procedure has been formalised further in the last number of weeks. The invitation to hearing in this case carried the following rider. It should be noted that a postponement will only be granted in exceptional circumstances and for substantial reasons. Applications are to be made in writing at the earliest possible date, setting out the full reasons for the application and must be accompanied by relevant supporting documentation. I found the non-appearance of the complainant for his own hearing to be unreasonable. I found it particularly difficult as the Respondent had presented in their team, complete with written submissions. I understand that last minute glitches can accompany everything in life, but I did not get a sense that this is what has occurred here. Instead, I offered to delay the commencement of the hearing to accommodate the complainant to travel from the Northern part of the County. The Respondent endorsed this suggestion, but it was unacceptable to the complainant side. I would much prefer to give the complainant his chance at first instance Adjudication, however, I must balance the fairness of that approach, based on the nonspecific grounds cited in seeking that postponement, with the time and efforts made by the Respondent to present at hearing. I have found that the complainant, despite the valiant efforts of his representative, has not met the exceptional circumstances test for a last-minute postponement of his case, I must, regrettably find that his case is not well founded.
|
Decision:Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act. I have found that the claim is not well founded. |
Dated: 08/10/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Claim for Unfair Dismissal |