ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032781
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | An Employer |
Representatives | None | Sophie Crosbie, IBEC |
Complaint(s):
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-00043367-001 | 31/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00043367-002 | 31/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/09/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint /dispute.
Background:
The Complainant issued a complaint seeking a decision that he had been constructive dismissed and seeking recommendation in relation to a industrial relations dispute |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
No appearance |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denied the basis of both complaints |
Findings and Conclusions:
An adjudication hearing took place on 6 September 2021. There was no attendance on or on behalf of the Complainant. The WRC attempted to contact the Complainant on the email address and telephone number that he had provided to the WRC for the purpose of the Adjudication process. He did not reply to the email and did not answer the phone call. The Adjudicator asked the Respondent party to suggest an alternative phone number or email address for the Complainant in case that which was provided was incorrect. The Respondent had the same email details but had an alternative mobile telephone number. The WRC concierge attempted to ring the alternative phone number but it registered as out of service. The notification of Adjudication hearing was sent to the Complainant at the email address provided and the accuracy of this address was confirmed by a Respondent witness as being the email address that they used when the Complainant was in their employment. Having exhausted all available avenues to contact the Complainant and the Complainant having not contacted the WRC to advise in any change of contact details the Adjudication proceeded in the Complainant’s absence |
Decision and Recommendation
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.
and
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00043367-001 In relation to this complaint, there being no appearance by the Complainant and the onus of proof in a constructive dismissal complaint being upon the Complainant to discharge I find that no evidence was put forth to base the Complaint and consequently that this complaint is not well founded CA-00043367-002 In relation to this complaint, there being no appearance by the Complainant and the onus of proof in an industrial relations complaint being upon the Complainant to discharge I find that no evidence was put forth to base the Complaint and consequently, that this complaint is not well founded. In such circumstances I make no recommendation. |
Dated: 10th September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
|