Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Emil Grzeskiewicz

Lidl Ireland GmbH

Representatives

Self-represented

Fieldfisher Ireland LLP

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00065723-001

01/09/2024

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

CA-00065723-002

01/09/2024

The respondent terminated the complainant’s employment following a disciplinary process.

The respondent fully disputed the complaints referred to the Commission of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

The complainant was dismissed during a period of sick leave. 

The date of dismissal detailed in the complaint form was 28 November 2023, with other dates referenced by the complainant in the complaint specific detail.  It was acknowledged by the complainant that more than 6 months had passed since dismissal and, in this regard, the complainant stated that he “was trying to get an answer from my employer first” without taking legal steps.

A complaint of discrimination was grounded on matters dating from December 2021.  The complainant was on sick leave from 19 April 2023 until he was dismissed.

By way of a preliminary issue, both complaints were referred to the Commission outside of the statutory time limits for referral.   

The unfair dismissal claim was referred over nine months after the date of the complainant’s dismissal for gross misconduct on 28 November 2023.  The complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 is also statute barred with the complainant setting out historic issues as far back as 2021. 

The complainant was in receipt of legal advice at the material time.

The complainant was aware of the statutory timeframes for referral of complaints to the Commission and has not identified any reason why the complaints were not filed in time and has not provided a justifiable excuse for the delay.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct following an investigation and disciplinary process in which the complainant chose not to engage.   The complainant had a disciplinary record from separate investigation and disciplinary processes.  

The complainant does not demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination.

In relation to the complainant’s non-attendance at the rescheduled hearing on 10 June 2025, the complainant has not explained why he waited until the morning of the hearing to contact the WRC, why he did not comply with directions from the hearing on 10 April 2025 and why he was unable to attend the rescheduled hearing.

The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1077-2015 and case under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 were referred by the complainant to the WRC on 1 September 2024.

The date of dismissal detailed by the complainant in the complaint form was 28 November 2023.  In the same form, he also referred to a last day of employment as 15 December 2023 and being employed until January.  The complainant acknowledged at the time of referral of his complaints that more than 6 months had passed since his dismissal.  The complainant detailed the most recent date of discrimination as 28 November 2023.

In an outline statement submitted prior to the first hearing date of 10 April 2025, the respondent disputed the merit of the complaints against it and further requested that the statutory timeframe for referral of the relevant complaints be addressed as a preliminary issue.

After I adjourned the hearing on 10 April 2025 due to an issue with an interpreter’s attendance at the hearing, I arranged for a communication to issue on my behalf to the parties.  The communication dated 14 April 2025 set out the preliminary issue to be addressed on the rescheduled hearing date, namely the relevant statutory requirements relating to the timeframe within which claims must be referred to the WRC, and the relevant statutory provisions.  The parties were given an opportunity to submit any written statements or supporting documentation on the preliminary issue in advance of the rescheduled hearing date.

By separate correspondence from the WRC dated 14 April 2025, the parties were notified of the hearing arrangements, in remote hearing format, for 10 June 2025.

I did not receive documentation or submissions on the preliminary issue after the hearing on 10 April 2025 and before the rescheduled hearing on 10 June 2025.

The complainant did not attend the hearing on 10 June 2025 and efforts to contact the complainant were unsuccessful.  I noted that I had not received any communication from the complainant concerning attendance at the hearing, and further that the complainant had not replied to an email from the WRC of 5 June 2025 with a request for information in relation to the remote hearing.   After allowing some time for any delay or difficulty on the part of the complainant, I closed the hearing. 

Following the hearing, I received a communication from the complainant to the WRC, which had been sent by email to the WRC 32 minutes before the hearing commenced on 10 June 2025.  The email referred to the complainant’s absence at the hearing on 10 June 2025, set out reasons for the delay in referring the complaints against the respondent to the WRC and requested more time so that the complainant could sort everything.  The communication was exchanged by the Commission with the respondent, and the respondent’s submissions in response dated 24 June 2025 were exchanged with the complainant.

The parties were informed that I would consider the submissions and documentation received after the hearing on 10 June 2025 in the context of the complainant’s non-attendance at that hearing.  The complainant’s email request of 10 June 2025 was for more time to sort out certain issues, and a medical certificate dated 9 June 2025 was submitted by way of explaining the complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing.  The respondent’s submissions in response included the submission that the complainant had failed to identify any circumstances which prevented his attendance at the hearing. 

It is appropriate to consider the complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing and request for more time having due regard to the rights of the parties to fair procedures and reasonable expedition in having a scheduled complaint heard. 

The complainant received 8 weeks’ notice of the rescheduled hearing date of 10 June 2025.  The medical certificate dated 9 June 2025 details the complainant as having been a patient of the medical practitioner from in or around the same time as the first hearing date.  The issues outlined in the medical certificate are not date specific, but consultation with another medical professional is referred to with further consultation awaited.  It is not clear that the certifying practitioner is the treating practitioner for the issues grounding the extension of time request, and the certificate does not evidence non-attendance at the hearing being by reason of a medical emergency.  There is no explanation as to why the complainant did not apply for a postponement in advance of the hearing or attend the remote hearing on 10 June to apply for an adjournment.  The medical certificate submitted does not certify the complainant as medically unfit to participate in or to attend a hearing before the WRC, or that he was unfit to engage with the WRC after the first hearing date.  The extent of the certificate is to suggest an extension of leave and the postponement of procedures until another medical consultation.  There is no information provided as to when another medical consultation would take place.  It is further of note that the complainant did not raise any difficulty at the hearing on 10 April 2025, or at any stage after the hearing letter for 10 June 2025 issued.   

Based on the foregoing, I am not satisfied of exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons for the complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing on 10 June 2025.

There was no postponement or adjournment of this case, and it was necessary for the complainant to attend the hearing on 10 June in pursuit of his complaints.  In the circumstances, I must conclude that the complaints against the respondent are not well founded.

Unfair dismissal – Employment Equality – Statutory requirements relating to referral – Adjournment of hearing – Rescheduled hearing  - Non attendance – Exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons