ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055936
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives |
| Ms. N McGowan, BL instructed by Ms. F. Sharkey, McInnes Dunne Murphy LLP Solicitors |
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-00068011-001 | 11/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 11 December 2024 the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. Following the referral of the case to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 30 April 2025.
This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020, which designate the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.
In addition to the legal representatives indicated above a senior manager attended on behalf of the Respondent.
Post Hearing Submission
On 2 May the Respondent sent further correspondence to the WRC for the attention of the Adjudication Officer. In that correspondence the Respondent made an application that the decision to be issued would be anonymised. This application was on the basis of “the incredibly distressing nature of the complaint for employees within the Respondent” and on the basis that this was the second time the Complainant had brought proceedings against the Respondent and not shown up to the hearing. The Respondent also pointed out that other than the two cases referred to, the Respondent had a 25-year history in business without any other WRC complaints.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Senior Full Stack Developer with the Respondent from 4 October 2021 until the termination of his employment on 2 August 2024. He alleged that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent.
The Respondent is a travel agent. The Respondent denied the allegations set out in the complaint. |
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.
Anonymisation of this Decision: I considered carefully the position outlined by the Respondent in its post-hearing submission and in that regard, I paid particular attention to the emails appended to the Respondent original submission which were sent by the Complainant to various members of staff in the Respondent employ. Even a cursory reading of this correspondence would support the contention that staff of the Respondent were distressed by the content of those emails and by the on-going pursuit of this and other complaints. In circumstances where the Complainant appeared to relentlessly pursue individuals, submit his complaints and then not attend to substantiate his allegations against the Respondent I must conclude that the Respondent and its employees have a right to maintain their privacy. In all of the circumstances of the case I have exercised my discretion to anonymise this decision.
The Substantive Complaint
I awaited the attendance of the Complainant on the day for 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I was satisfied that notice containing the details of the date, time and place of the hearing had been properly communicated to the Complainant. The Respondent and its representatives had provided a submission in advance of the hearing, were present at the hearing and were prepared to respond to the complaint.
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint and in the context that I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the arrangements for the hearing and in the absence of any explanation for his non-attendance, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.
|
Dated: 8th May 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|