ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053686
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Luke Shaw | Sky Subscribers Services Limited (ROI Branch) |
Representatives | Did not attend | Brian Joyce IBEC |
Complaint:
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-00065519-001 | 20/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
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.
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Mr Luke Shaw as “the Complainant” and to Sky Subscriber Services Limited (ROI Branch) as “the Respondent.”
The hearing was scheduled for 11/12/2024 at 11.00am in Lansdowne House. The Respondent’s representative and witnesses attended. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. There was no contact from the Complainant at the time of the hearing.
I am satisfied that the Complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 16/10/2024 advising him of the date, time and venue of the hearing. The Complainant was advised by the WRC on 28/11/2024 that the Respondent’s request for a postponement was refused and that correspondence confirmed that the hearing would proceed as scheduled and, once again, outlined the date, time and venue for the hearing. I also note that the Complainant was sent a copy of the Respondent’s submission on 04/12/2024 and this also contained details of the hearing arrangements.
In order to exercise a significant amount of caution I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close and there was no further communication received from or on behalf of the Complainant to indicate that there were difficulties which could explain his non-attendance.
The day after the hearing the Complainant contacted the WRC to apologise for not attending and his reason for not attending was that he got the date mixed up. He noted that this came about “from crossed wires and confusion” resulting from self-representation.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 25/07/2022 as a Sell Advisor on a permanent contract of employment. He was promoted to a Sell Specialist role on 12/04/2023. He worked 39 hours per week and was paid a yearly gross salary of €32,204.55. He was dismissed from his role on 19/08/2024 for reasons of gross misconduct which arose following a conviction under Section 45(3) of the criminal law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.
The Complainant believes that his dismissal was unfair as the events which led to his conviction occurred prior to his employment with the Respondent and no one from the Respondent was involved in this matter.
The Respondent submits that the decision to dismiss was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances and the decision to dismiss was taken after a full and fair investigation and disciplinary process.
The Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on 20/08/2024. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not provide any written submission and he did not attend the hearing as scheduled. No postponement request was received from the complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent provided a written submission in advance of the hearing. The Respondent’s representative and number of witnesses attended and were prepared to give evidence in relation to this complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements on a number of occasions. I find that his non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 I find this complaint is not well-founded. |
Decision:
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.
In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 at the hearing on 11/12/2024 I find this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 19/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words: