ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056388
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vanessa Sartori Keiber | Savoy Limerick |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | No Appearance | Dominic Wilkinson BL instructed by ARAG Legal Protection |
Complaints:
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-00068485-001 | 08/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or 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.
Background:
There was no appearance by the Complainant at the hearing. Documentary evidence was submitted by the Complainant in advance of hearing
The Respondent was repeated at the hearing with a number of witnesses attending to give evidence.
Detailed written submissions were received from the Respondent.
|
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
After allowing a reasonable period of time, there was no appearance by the Complainant. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Complainant was duly notified of the hearing. There was recent correspondence to and from the Complainant on file. Accordingly, I proceeded with the hearing in her absence. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The position was outlined to the Respondent at the outset of the hearing. Counsel for the Respondent made an application to further delay the hearing to allow the Complainant, a lay litigant, every opportunity to attend. When the hearing was resumed for a second time, the Counsel submitted that the Respondent relied upon its written submissions, denying the complaint in full. In addition, it was submitted that further to the absence of the Complainant, there was no case to answer on its merits. An application was made to strike out the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the circumstances where there was no appearance by the Complainant at the hearing, I find she was not unfairly dismissed from her employment with the Respondent. |
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.
I find the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Dated: 14-07-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
No Appearance |