ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057198
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shauna Tsang | Asetica |
Representatives | Non-attendance | Liz Melia |
Complaint(s):
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-00069522-001 | 24/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2006 | CA-00069522-003 | 24/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069522-004 | 24/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069522-005 | 24/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069522-006 | 24/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter. Two witnesses for the respondent attended the hearing. The hearing started with a pause for ten minutes to enable the complaint to either attend or to make contact with the WRC. The hearing opened and closed in the absence of the complainant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing of the matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter, no evidence was presented to me either in support of this claim. Hearing notification letters issued to the complainant on 16 June 2025, consequently I am satisfied that the complainant was on notice. The complainant has offered no explanation for their absence. Having regard to the nonattendance of the complaint, I find that the complaints are not well founded, and that no contravention of the Act has been established by the complainant. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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.
Having regard to the nonattendance of the complainant at the hearing of these complaint, my decision is that the complaints are not well founded, that no contravention of the Act has been established, and that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Dated: 14/07/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Nonattendance of complainant – complaint not well founded – no contravention established – not unfairly dismissed. |