ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024280
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Yuying Liu | University College Dublin |
Representatives | Yuying Liu | Louise O'Byrne Arthur Cox |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00031056-001 | 31/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031056-002 | 31/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031056-003 | 31/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00031056-004 | 31/07/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
Background:
The Complainant previously worked as a senior teaching fellow at the Confucius Institute for Ireland, an institute for Chinese Studies. Her contract commenced on the 1st of August 2018, and she resigned from her post on or about the 8th of January 2020. The Complaints were lodged with the WRC on 31st of July 2019. In her complaint form allegations were that the College failed to comply with the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994-2014 (“Terms of Employment); was not notified of her starting and finishing times in advance in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997; that she was not given compensation for working on Sunday as prescribed by the Organisation Working Time Act and was discriminated against on the ground of gender. The Respondent rebuts these complaints and denies that such breaches as alleged occurred. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant failed to attend at the hearing. The contact details were provided by Grogan Solicitor’s and a mobile phone number. No address was provided. I am satisfied that confirmation of the hearing was given to the Complainant based on the email provided and that follow up also took place post hearing. Contact that was made by mobile phone also provided by her Solicitor, failed to illicit any response from the Complainant. In these circumstances where the Solicitor’s practice contacts the Commission with an email address and mobile number, those contact detailed used, where emails and messages have not been responded to, I must conclude that reasonable endeavours have been made to inform the Complainant of the date, time and place of the hearing and that follow up also has taken place to ascertain why she failed to attend at the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended at the hearing and was ready to rebut the allegations made against them. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant with details provided by her Solicitor was contacted with particulars of the date, time and place of the hearing. A follow up contact was made, using the mobile phone contact provided to ascertain why she failed to attend and a message left. I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to contact her. In these circumstances where the Respondent has attended, and the Complainant has failed to attend I must dismiss the complaints and determine that they are not well founded, and that the Complainant was not discriminated against on the ground of gender. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00031056-001 The Complainant’s alleged that her terms of employment were not provided to her as set down in law and in a manner compliant with the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 to 2014, the complaint is not well founded as no case has been presented by the Complainant. She failed to attend at the hearing and the employer was present and ready to rebut the allegation made against them. CA-00031056-002 the Complainant alleged that her employer failed to notify her of her starting and finishing times as required under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 as amended. The Complainant failed to attend at the hearing and to present her case. The Respondent was present and ready to rebut the complaint made against them. In these circumstances I must find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00031056-003 the Complainant alleged that she was not paid the appropriate premium for working on Sundays. The Complainant failed to attend at the hearing and to present her case. The Respondent was present and ready to rebut the complaint made against them. In these circumstances I must find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00031056-004 the Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the ground of gender and relied on the Employment Equality Act 1998 as amended to bring this complaint. The Complainant failed to attend at the hearing and to present her case. The Respondent was present and ready to rebut the complaint made against them. In these circumstances I must find that the complaint is not well founded and that the Complainant was not discriminated against.
|
Dated: 11th May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No show |