ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054824
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Civil Servant | A State Body |
Representatives | Did not attend and was not represented | Eileen Burke CSSO |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 | CA-00066813-001 | 19/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
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.
The parties were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public.
However, I have taken it upon myself to anonymise the decision as it concerns a third party who may be identifiable from the details.
In the first hearing on the 27th of May 2025 in attendance The Complainant who was unrepresented and the for the Respondent Ms Guiness (BL), Ms Burke (CSSO) and other representatives.
In the second hearing on the 12th of November 2025 in attendance The Complainant did not appear and for the Respondent; Ms Guiness (BL), Ms Burke (CSSO) and other representatives.
The first hearing was adjourned on the application of the Complainant as he had been unavailable to obtain representation this was resisted by the Respondent on the basis that the Complainant had access to the same in his previous location as well as his new location. This hearing was adjourned and resumed on the 12th of November 2025 when the Complainant failed to attend.
No witnesses were called on either date.
Substantive documentation was received from Ms Guinness and none from the Complainant for either date.
The Second hearing was adjourned to allow for the Complainant explaining and excuse his absence, in the absence of which the complaint would be dismissed. On that basis the hearing was properly closed.
In coming to my decision, I have fully considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, and the written and oral submissions on behalf of the parties.
Background:
The Complaint was referred in relation to the Complainant allegation that he was denied the use of Domestic Violence Leave in line with the Act.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint form, the complainant reports that on 06/10/2024 they availed of a Domestic Violence Leave day. Upon returning to work, they were called to a meeting with HR, where they were questioned about the situation and explained that the leave was taken to support a person following a domestic violence incident, experienced by that person. HR stated that Domestic Violence Leave would not be granted to anyone at the complainant’s workplace and indicated that further communication would follow. On 10/10/2024, the complainant received an email from HR confirming that they were deemed ineligible for Domestic Violence Leave under the relevant circular. Instead, the absence was recorded as Annual Leave. The complainant felt this decision was unfair and distressing, particularly given the circumstances they set out. They also noted that HR had not circulated guidance on availing of Domestic Violence Leave, which led the complainant to report the absence as they would for sick leave. This resulted in colleagues becoming aware of the situation, causing further distress. The complainant believes the matter was handled improperly and seeks assistance in resolving the issue. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent made a written submission that arrived at the Commission the day before the first hearing. The facts of the absence are not disputed, but the Respondent completely refutes that the Complainant was told no one would receive this type of leave. The Respondent sets out that the Complainant is a Civil Servant and adduced evidence to this by exhibiting his contract of employment and the civil service circular on the matter. The Respondent also set out a few issues in relation to absenteeism on the part of the Complainant. On his return to work the Complainant was offered supports by HR and the Complainant shared that the reason was to offer supports to a former partner with whom the Complainant had been in an intimate relationship, who was subject to verbal abuse by a family member. The reasons for availing of the leave are set out in the act, and it is the Respondent assertion that the reasons offered by the Complainant are not covered by the act. The Respondent draws attention to paragraph 5 the definition of a relevant person and the reasons allowed for the leave. It accepted by the Respondent that the relevant person is valid but the reason for the leave is not. Further to this, it is the custom and practice of that employer for the employee to email or phone HR directly with any issue a staff member may have to ensure that they are supported appropriately. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant failed to attend or notify the Commission of their non-attendance, having previously applied for, and being granted, an adjournment to allow them to prepare their case and secure representation. The Commission was forced by the unnotified attendance of the Complainant to attempt contact which failed. The Complainant later contacted the Commission to say he had forgotten and was considering withdrawing the complaint. I am fully satisfied that the Complainant was properly on notice for both hearings. In not attending, the Complainant put a great deal of cost to the exchequer in wasting the time of the Commission and in the Respondent staff and Chief State Solicitor in having to arrange a legal defence and attendance for the Respondent. Having assured myself that the Complainant was on notice and that he failed to attend; I can only find the complaint 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.
For the reasons outlined above I can only find the complaint not well-founded |
Dated: 08/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Key Words:
|