EDA263

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00049474 (CA-00060852-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 18 October 2024. Labour Court hearings took place on 24 February 2026.

The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Joseph Cunningham (“the Appellant”) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00049474 CA-00060852-001 dated 27 September 2024) in relation to a complaint made by him against his former employer, Irish Rail (“the Respondent”), under the Employment Equality Act, 1998. 

The Adjudication Officer found the complaint was not well founded. Joseph Cunningham lodged an appeal of that determination to the Labour Court on 18 October 2024. 

By letter dated 23 December 2025, the Court notified the parties that the appeal would be heard on Tuesday, 24 February 2026 at 10.00am. The Respondent and the Appellant’s union representative confirmed the attendance of the parties in advance of the scheduled hearing date. 

The Appeal Hearing

On the day of the hearing there was no appearance by the Appellant at the allocated start time. The Appellant’s union representative was in attendance, as was the Respondent’s representative and a witness who were ready to proceed to defend the appeal.

The Appellant’s union representative advised the Court that he was unable to make contact with the Appellant by phone on the morning of the hearing. He confirmed that the Appellant was on notice of the appeal as they had met on the previous Thursday to prepare for the case, and they had arranged to meet at 9.00am in advance of the scheduled hearing at 10.00am.

The Court adjourned the hearing for a short period, in case the Appellant contacted his union representative to explain his non-appearance and/or was delayed on his way to the hearing.

The hearing re-opened at 10.30am. The Chairman noted that as the Appellant was not present to move the appeal it was open to the Court having heard from the parties to adjourn the hearing to an alternative date or to decide to regard the Appellant’s non-attendance as a failure to advance his appeal. The Appellant’s union representative advised that his further attempts to contact the Appellant were unsuccessful and that, in the circumstances, he was seeking that the hearing be postponed and rescheduled it to another date. In reply, the Respondent’s representative submitted that the Respondent wished to have the matter concluded as soon as possible, as there were similar cases pending, but it would not oppose the application if the appeal could be rescheduled by the Court as a priority within the next month or two.

The Court adjourned for a period to consider the matter. Where an Appellant does not turn up for the hearing and, no satisfactory explanation is given to the Court for the failure of the Appellant to appear, the Court may determine that the appeal has not been upheld. The Appellant had failed to attend the scheduled hearing to move the appeal.

Deliberation

Rule 41 of the Labour Court Rules 2024, states:

“Where the Appellant does not turn up for the hearing and, no satisfactory explanation is given to the Court for the failure of the Appellant to appear, the Court may determine that the appeal has not been upheld”.

In coming to the decision to refuse the application to postpone the scheduled hearing, the Court took account of the following:

The Court is fully satisfied that the Appellant was aware of the date, time and place of the hearing, which was confirmed by the Appellant’s union representative to the Court at the hearing. The Court delayed the hearing for a period to allow the Appellant make contact with his representative. The Appellant did not reply to efforts made by his union representative to contact him by phone. 

The Respondent was present at the hearing with witnesses in attendance and was ready to proceed. The Respondent submitted that it would not oppose the application to postpone the hearing if the matter could be rescheduled as a priority. It is not feasible or reasonable for the Court to prioritise the rescheduling of appeals where an Appellant has failed to attend a scheduled hearing to move his appeal.

In this case, the Appellant provided no satisfactory explanation for not appearing at the scheduled hearing of the appeal. No evidence or medical certification was submitted to say that the Appellant was unfit or unable to attend the hearing on 24 February 2026. 

The resources of the Labour Court are scarce. A postponement of the hearing at this late juncture would result in wasted costs for the parties and for the public, involving lost time for Members of the Court and the secretariat. The Court room and facilities was set aside for the day to hear the appeal. It is not possible to schedule an alternative case in place of the scheduled appeal at this late stage. Furthermore, rescheduling the appeal will take up further time on the Court programme - which will delay another party having their appeal heard.

The Court having considered all the above did not believe that justice would be served by postponing the hearing. The requirement for fairness and equity must apply to both parties. The Court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, a further delay in the hearing of the within appeal would be contrary to parties right to a fair and expeditious trial and to have their rights and obligations determined within a reasonable timeframe.

An appeal to the Labour Court is heard as a de novo appeal. As the Appellant did not attend the hearing to move the appeal, the appeal fails, and the Court finds that the complaint under the Act is not well founded.

Decision

The Appellant was not present to move the appeal. The appeal fails.

The complaint under the Act is not well founded.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
FC	______________________
26 February 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.