I attended a WRC hearing recently with a client, the employer on this occasion, and the employee/Complainant did not show up to present his case and be heard.
For our side there was myself, my client and two witnesses and we had prepared thoroughly for the case.
My client and the witnesses had taken time off work and cancelled engagements to be there to meet the claim. I had blocked the day off in my calendar because it is impossible to know how long any case will take to be heard; it depends on a number of factors including
- The adjudicator
- The number of complaints
- The number of witnesses
- Any documentation to be considered
- The complexity of the issues to be teased out
- And so on.
In this case, however, I argued that the case should be struck out for want of prosecution. I argued that if the Complainant wanted an adjournment he could easily have requested one as notification of hearings usually give at least 3 or 4 weeks’ notice and this complainant’s representative advised the adjudicator that his “client” was out of the country.
We have not had a decision yet but I would be hopeful that my application that it be thrown out for want of prosecution will succeed.
My understanding is that unless there is some credible excuse or explanation, and provided the adjudicator is satisfied the non-attending party has been notified of the hearing, that the case will fail.
This is what happened in ADJ-00025136 involving a service worker and hospital and a claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts. The Complainant did not show up and the adjudicator was satisfied he was informed in writing of the date, time, and place of the hearing.
The Respondent was ready to present their case and the Adjudicator found “In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I conclude that the complaint is not well founded.”
Preparing properly for all these WRC cases takes time and money and it is only right that a party who fails to attend, unless there is an exceptional reason, should be penalised. Perhaps there would be less “no shows” if the parties had to pay an application fee when making the claim, which fee could be returned once they go ahead with their claim and it is not an abuse of process and is not frivolous or vexatious.