ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054431

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Oksana Branitska	Microsoft

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Oksana Branitska	Microsoft

Representatives

No show

Julie Galbraith Eversheds Sutherland

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act	CA-00066584-001	09/10/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/04/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

There was a preliminary objection to the hearing by the Respondent for the following reason:

The Complainant resigned from her employment with the Respondent on 10 March 2023. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a complaint bearing complaint reference CA00055012. On foot of this complaint, a Settlement Agreement was entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent, wherein the Complainant received an ex-gratia lump sum, in return for withdrawing this complaint and waiving her right to take any further complaints against the Respondent. The Complainant did so having had the benefit of taking legal advice. Clause 3 of the Settlement Agreement she signed provides that: “The Claimant acknowledges and agrees that before signing this Agreement she has had an opportunity to obtain independent legal advice with regard to her legal rights and the consequences and legal effect of this Agreement from her solicitor, Alexandra Moore of Denis McSweeney Solicitors. The Claimant confirms that she understands and accepts the contents of this Agreement in full.”

The Respondent asked for the matter to be decided on the papers. That application was not acceded to so that both parties could be heard.

The Complainant asked for the hearing to be postponed advising that she had lost her computer or related matter. As the request was made so close to the hearing date, the Complainant was advised that the application was required to be made in person at the scheduled hearing.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant failed to attend at the hearing.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent attended and was ready to rebut the claim being made by the Complainant.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant failed to attend to make their application for an adjournment.

The Respondent was in attendance and ready to rebut the claim being made against them.

The Complainant was properly notified of the date, time and place of the hearing.

In these circumstances I must dismiss the complaint for failure to attend at the hearing. The 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.