ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055275
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Radoslaw Bednarski | Woodfarm Fencing Supplies Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Michaela Lawless Patrick Hogan & Co. |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00067357-001 | 13/11/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00067357-002 | 13/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 Acts following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. The complainant did not attend. In attendance for the respondent was Jason English and Edward Robaro.
Background:
The complainant did not attend the hearing.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00067357-001
The complainant did not attend. On 03/06/2025 the complainant advised that he had lost his evidence. The complainant’s form set out that he did not receive redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00067357-001
The respondent denies the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00067357-001
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 13/11/2024 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held 05/06/2025 and the complainant emailed on 03/06/2025 advising they had lost their evidence and there was no appearance by the complainant and no adjournment was sought. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend.
In the circumstances, I find that the complainant is not well founded, disallow the appeal and I dismiss the complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00067357-002
The complainant did not attend. On 03/06/2025 the complainant advised that he had lost his evidence. The complainant’s complaint form set out that he did not receive statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00067357-002
The respondent denies the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00067357-002
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 13/11/2024 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held 05/06/2025 and the complainant emailed on 03/06/2025 advising they had lost their evidence and there was no appearance by the complainant and no adjournment was sought. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend.
In the circumstances, I find that the complainant is not well founded the Act was not contravened and I dismiss the complaint. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00067357-001 I find that the complainant is not well founded, disallow the appeal and I dismiss the complaint. CA-00067357-002 I find that the complainant is not well founded, the Act was not contravened and I dismiss the complaint |
Dated: 26th June 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Complainant did not attend, redundancy, minimum notice. |