ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054381
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Michelle Hannigan | Lorraine Morris t/a The Tan Fairy |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Non-Appearance | Peter Dunlea of Peninsula Business Services |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00065797-001 | 04/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered but not deemed necessary.
1: Opening Issue – Non-Appearance of Complainant
The Complainant did not attend the Oral Hearing despite being notified properly of the time, date and place of same.
A period of grace of some three weeks was allowed post the Hearing for receipt of any mitigating bona fide explanations for the non-attendance. None were received.
The Respondent applied for the Complaint to be struck out in view of the non-attendance of the Complainant.
As there was no evidence presented either orally or in writing the complaint was deemed Not Properly Founded and was not proceeded with.
2: Findings and Conclusions:
The Complaint was deemed Not Properly Founded due to the Non-Appearance of the Complainant and no evidence being presented. |
3: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA: -00065797-001
The Complaint is deemed Not Properly Founded.
It fails.
Dated: 09/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Payment of Wages, Non-Appearance. |