ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050849
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Marvin Berman | Neuronic Devices Limited (dissolved as of 17 June 2024 by voluntary strike off) |
Representatives | No attendance |
|
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-00062263-001 | 16/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
A search of the Companies Registration Office showed that the Respondent was incorporated on the 19 April 2021 and was dissolved on the 17 June 2024. The Form H15 filed with the Companies Registration Office stated that the date of resolution to apply for voluntary strike off was the 23 January 2024.
Both Liam Pingree and Marvin Schoenauer former directors of the Respondent attended at the remote hearing.
The Complainant's complaint form set out that he commenced employment for the Respondent on 4 January 2021 and his employment ended on 16 March 2024. He was resident in the United States of America and he consented to service and engagement by the Workplace Relations Commission by email. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complaint form indicated that the claim was that of unfair dismissal. There is no attendance by the Complainant at the remote hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The former directors stated that the details provided in the complaint form were inaccurate. They confirmed that the Respondent did not trade during its existence and the Respondent was dissolved by voluntary strike off on the 17 June 2024. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was served with the notice of the hearing date on the 28 November 2024. He consented to engage with the Workplace Relations commission by email. He emailed the case officer on 2 February 2025 two days before the hearing. He did not attend the remote hearing. |
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.
This complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on the 16 March 2024 alleging his Unfair Dismissal pursuant to the provisions of the Act listed above. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 4 February 2025. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and remote nature of the hearing to investigate his complaint. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I conclude that this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 30/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
No Attendance |