ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056905
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Robert Shorley | Karm Transport Ltd . |
Representatives | Self-represented | Mr Raymond McKenna, Director |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00069237-001 | 12/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/03/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 as amended, 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.
At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. The legal perils of committing perjury were explained. All participants who gave evidence were sworn in. The parties were offered the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence.
The parties were also advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the terms of Complainant and Respondent are used throughout the body of the decision.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the submissions and evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective positions of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or found superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held
‘…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…’.
I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63.
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
The Complainant was self-represented. The Respondent was represented by Mr Ray McKenna, Director.
Background:
The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 9 July 2018. His employment terminated on 5 April 2024. This claim was heard in conjunction with the Complainant’s claims bearing reference number ADJ-00055154. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant alleges that his employment was terminated and he received no notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent does not contest the claim. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim was heard in conjunction with the Complainant’s claims bearing reference number ADJ-00055154. In that complaint, which was initially referred under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 as amended (CA-00067187-001), the Complainant successfully sought the introduction of an additional claim under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (CA-00067187-002). However, the complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 was found to be referred to the Director General of the WRC outside the prescribed time limits. This claim is a duplicate of the complaint CA-00067187-002 in ADJ-00055154 and was therefore disposed of. For the avoidance of any doubt, this claim was referred to the Director General on 12 February 2024, over three months after the initial claim, which was found to have been referred outside the prescribed time limits. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is a duplicate of the complaint CA-00067187-002 in ADJ-00055154 and was, therefore, disposed of. Consequently, I declare this complaint to be not well founded. |
Dated: 22/05/2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
Minimum notice |