Complaint dismissed due to non-attendance and lack of evidence.

The Complainant claimed that during a short period of employment from 16 December 2023 to 26 December 2023, he did not receive a payslip, was denied appropriate rest breaks, and that there had been a breach of Regulation 8 of S.I. No. 377/2009. The Complainant did not provide any further detail or supporting documentation in advance of the hearing. He did not particularise the dates, hours worked, or specific instances of alleged non-compliance. Furthermore, the Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing and did not offer any explanation or seek an adjournment. As a result, his complaints remained unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence. The absence of any oral testimony or documentary evidence meant that the claims were presented in a general and unparticularised manner, leaving the Adjudicator without a factual basis upon which to assess the alleged breaches of statutory obligations.

The Respondent fully contested all complaints and submitted that the claims were vague, lacking in detail, and legally unsustainable. It was explained that the Complainant had been employed as a seasonal retail Sales Associate for approximately two weeks and that his working hours were recorded manually due to incomplete system registration. The Respondent maintained that all statutory rest periods were observed and that the Complainant did not exceed maximum working hours. It further submitted that a payslip had been generated and made available through its online system, thereby complying with the Payment of Wages Act. The Respondent argued that the alleged breach of transport regulations was misconceived, as the Complainant was not engaged in transport-related work. It also highlighted procedural prejudice arising from a delay of almost two years in notification of the complaint, which resulted in the loss of key witnesses. Despite attempts to engage with the Complainant, no response was received.

The Adjudicating found that the Complainant had been duly notified of the hearing but failed to attend or provide any explanation for his absence. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence, the Adjudicator was unable to investigate or assess the substance of the complaints. It was noted that the burden of proof rests on the Complainant to establish the facts of the case, and this burden had not been discharged. While the Respondent had provided submissions contesting the claims, the lack of participation by the Complainant rendered it impossible to test or evaluate the allegations. In accordance with section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, where a complainant fails to attend and no evidence is presented, the Adjudicator is precluded from proceeding further. Accordingly, all complaints were dismissed as not well-founded due to the absence of supporting evidence and the Complainant’s failure to prosecute the case.

Employers should:

• Ensure that all statutory obligations, including the provision of payslips and compliance with working time legislation, are properly documented and capable of being demonstrated through reliable records. Even in short-term or seasonal employment.  
  
  
• Maintain robust systems for employee onboarding and record-keeping. Where systems are incomplete or manual processes are used, employers should ensure that these records are retained and accessible. Delays in responding to complaints can create evidential challenges, particularly where staff turnover has occurred, and employers should have procedures in place to ensure that correspondence is promptly identified and addressed.
  
  
• Engage with dispute resolution processes. While a failure by a complainant to attend may result in dismissal of the claim, employers should not rely on this outcome.

The full case can be found here.