Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alan Edwards

CPM Ireland

Representatives

 N/A

 N/A

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00071474-001

09/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00071474-002

09/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00071474-003

09/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071474-004

09/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00071474-006

09/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00073074-001

02/07/2025

Ms. Monika Florczyk, HR Manager with the Respondent and Ms. Louise Fitzmaurice, HR Generalist with the Respondent, attended the hearing.

The Complainant submitted a number of complaints as set out in the heading of this decision.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing and so has not provided the necessary evidence under oath or affirmation in order to substantiate his complaints.

The Respondent attended the hearing, but in the absence of any direct evidence from the Complainant, there was no case for it to answer.

The Complainant wrote to the Commission on 17th July 2025 and stated:

“While I will no longer be taking an active part in the process, I am fully supportive of it continuing in my absence. I trust that the information and evidence I’ve submitted will speak for itself.”

And

“I now place the matter in the hands of the WRC to do what is right — not only to vindicate me, but to help ensure that what I went through does not happen to anyone else. Thank you for facilitating the process thus far.”

A response issued from the Adjudication Services Unit on 22nd July 2025 which said:

“The WRC can only progress your claim by conducting a hearing on the matter, this will require you to attend the hearing either in person or remotely. If you do not attend the WRC will issue a non-attendance decision. Please advise how you wish to proceed.”

The Complainant advised that he wished to proceed and would attend the hearing.

Hearing notification letters issued on 22nd September 2025. The hearing notification letter to the Complainant was sent to the email address previously provided by him. It was sent at 12.57 on 22nd September 2025 and contained the subject line “ADJ-00058883 Notification of Adjudication Hearing Arrangements” and an attachment titled “ADJ-00058883 Hearing Notice complainant.pdf”.

On 5th November 2025, the Complainant emailed the following:

“I was just wondering is there any possibility of the hearing being rescheduled as I didn’t see the arrangement of the hearing as it was deleted as my email flagged it as spam and binned it, also I only got the correspondence from CPM on Friday and I need a bit more time to get my evidence and everything together and submitted, and also I’m currently working full time so I’d need to give my regional manager at least three weeks notice prior to taking the day off.”

A reply issued which stated “It will not be possible to postpone the hearing for the reasons set out below.  Please attend the hearing scheduled for 12.11.25.” and the Complainant responded to say “That’s fine I won’t be able to attend next week as reasons set out in my email. Carry out the hearing in my absence”.

The WRC has a policy that any postponement of a hearing can only occur if there are substantial reasons and exceptional circumstances. It is incumbent on a party to an adjudication to make themselves available for hearings and to monitor the method which they have selected to be contacted.

In this case, I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and location of the hearing and choose not to attend.

The Complainant requested that the hearing proceed in his absence, however, evidence before the WRC is given on oath or affirmation. This evidence is required in order to establish the facts of a complaint and allow for cross examination which can test that evidence. In the absence of the Complainant attending to give evidence in relation to his complaints, I am unable to progress them any further. This was clearly explained to him in the email dated 22nd July 2025 from the Adjudication Services Unit and I am satisfied that the Complainant was aware that he needed to attend the hearing in order to progress his complaints.

In all the circumstances, and in the absence of direct evidence, I must conclude the complaints are not well founded.

I do not find in favour of the Complainant for the reasons set out above.

Non attendance