ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00056852

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  06/06/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Breiffni O'Neill

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

This hearing was held in conjunction with ADJ 56898.

Preliminary Issue: Identity of the Employer

At the outset, it was noted that the Complainant had named two entities as Respondents in these proceedings:

• Viecura Medical Limited (the Respondent in the present case), and
• Theya Healthcare Limited (the Respondent in ADJ-00056898).

The Complainant explained that she had submitted complaints against both entities due to uncertainty as to which of them was, in law, her employer—or whether both entities might share that status.

Mr. Ryan BL appeared at the hearing solely to represent the interests of Viecura Medical Limited. There was no appearance by, or on behalf of, Theya Healthcare Limited. It was confirmed by those attending with Mr. Ryan BL that no representative would be appearing to respond to the claims against Theya Healthcare Limited.

Procedural Clarification

At the commencement of the hearing, I outlined the intended procedural approach. Specifically, I indicated that I would first hear submissions from both the Complainant and Mr. Ryan BL on the preliminary issue of whether Viecura Medical Limited was the Complainant’s legal employer. I advised that, based on the evidence presented, I would make a verbal ruling on this point during the hearing, to be followed by a formal written decision.

Both parties confirmed their agreement with this approach.

I further advised that, should I determine that Viecura Medical Limited was not the Complainant’s employer, I would then proceed to hear the Complainant’s substantive complaint against Theya Healthcare Limited, notwithstanding the absence of representation for that entity.

Evidence on the Preliminary Issue

In support of her position, the Complainant submitted that the narrative on her bank statements each month indicated that her salary payments came from Viecura Medical Limited.

In response, the Respondent presented documentation to demonstrate that the Complainant was, in fact, employed by Theya Healthcare Limited. This included:

• Payslips issued to the Complainant,
• Official employment records from the Revenue Commissioners,
• A letter of resignation dated 23 September 2024, in which the Complainant resigned from her “position as CEO of Theya Healthcare.”

None of the documentation presented by the Respondent was disputed by the Complainant.

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.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

Dated:   28-07-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Breiffni O'Neill

Key Words: