ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057342
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sarah Keleghan | Global Logic Software and Technology Ireland Limited (formally known as Sidero) |
Representatives |
| Alison McComiskey IBEC West |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069126-001 | 08/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00069127-001 | 08/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00069128-001 | 08/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Parent’s Leave and Benefit Act 2019 | CA-00069131-001 | 08/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00069137-001 | 08/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00069144-001 | 09/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00069147-001 | 09/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
The Complainant has brought a series of complaints against the Employer with whom she was engaged from the 6th of July 2023 to the 31st of March 2023. These complaints issued by way of workplace relations complaint forms which were received by the WRC on the 8th and 9th of February 2025.
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted remotely as provided for in the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party would have been prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 17th April 2025 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form.
From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that she was discriminated against by the Respondent in her employment the (Employment Equality Act, 1998 ) and in the provision of services (Equal Status Act, 2000). The Complainant is also alleging that the Respondent has contravened certain employment statutes including the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 the Parent’s Leave and Benefit Act 2019 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant had presented a significant amount of paperwork in advance of this hearing. All of this documentation was presented in support of the Complainant’s spectrum of complaints. None of the documentation was ultimately opened in a hearing and the Respondent’s attitude to same remains unknown.
On the evening before the hearing at circa 3pm the following email was notified to Adjudication service:
Dear Workplace Relations Commissions Team, I decline and refuse your offer of a Webex Hearing - you can update the series of names involved. There must be something of grave concern that an in person hearing is not possible. Enough technicalities have failed within the WRC, however, duly noted for future reference, and in the correct hands. Mr ****** only yesterday requested a new postponement form, 2 days prior to a webex hearing date. Thank you for all of the legal documents, which are also stored, and will be stored elsewhere. Dates, times and cross reference of names involved, available for future inspection, and in the correct hands. Yours sincerely, Sarah This was deemed not to be a withdrawal of the Complainant’s complaints, and the matter remained in the list for hearing as scheduled. The Complainant did not attend. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as IBEC. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated the 9th of May 2025. The Respondent had two key employees attend the hearing to give evidence on behalf of the Employer. Had evidence been presented I have no doubt it would have been robustly challenged by the Respondent. The Respondent has asserted that it has always treated the Complainant with dignity and respect and within the parameters of any and all employment legislations identified by the Complainant herein. In any event the Respondent has indicated that in circumstances where the Complainant has allowed a considerable length of time to elapse since the end of the employment relationship then the complaints are fundamentally out of time. This would have been a preliminary issue. The Respondent rejects that there has been a Constructive Dismissal and does not accept any contravention of Employment Rights as protected by statute.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not present evidence in support of any of her complaints. |
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 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00069126-001 – Complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 CA-00069127-001 – Complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00069128-001 - Complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Parent’s Leave and Benefit Act 2019 CA-00069131-001 - Complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00069137-001 - Complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 CA-00069144-001 - Complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 CA-00069147-001 - Complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
|
Dated: 14th July 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|