ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061404

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Salvis Ozolins	Remcoll Modular International

Representatives

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute 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-00074134-001	07/08/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/03/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens

Procedure:

On 17 august 2025 the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission as outlined above. Following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 6 March 2026 to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence the parties deemed relevant.

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.

The Respondent attended the hearing and was unrepresented.

Background:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 7 October 2024 as a General Operative. He alleged that he did not receive his statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of his employment.

The Respondent denied the allegation.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent was present and prepared to outline its’ position at the hearing but in the context that there was no Complainant present to move the complaint this proved unnecessary.

Findings and Conclusions:

Although the Respondent was present on the day of the hearing, there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. On the day of the hearing the Complainant’s attendance was awaited for in excess of 20 minutes.

I noted that in the late evening on the day immediately prior to the hearing the Complainant emailed the WRC and indicated that he had sent an email “a long time ago” advising that he did not want to proceed with the complaint and indicating that he was not available for the hearing. There was no record of a withdrawal of the complaint having been received by the WRC.

Based on the above correspondence I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the arrangements for the hearing. I am also satisfied that despite being aware of those arrangements the Complainant did not seek a postponement of the hearing

As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint and in all the circumstances described above I must find that this complaint is not well founded.

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.

I found that this complaint was not well founded, and I decide accordingly.

Dated: 11-08-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens

Key Words: