ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047554
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Lauryn Brennan | Metron Stores Limited t/a Iceland (in liquidation) |
Representatives | N/A | N/A |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00058592-001 | 31/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00058592-002 | 31/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/06/2024, 01/10/2024 and 12/03/2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and/or 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.
The matter was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designates the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Hearing Days:
This matter was scheduled for three Hearing days:
On 13 June 2024, Ms. Lauryn Brennan (the “Complainant”) did not attend, however her representative, Mr. Alexander Homits of the Independent Workers’ Union (the “Complainant’s Representative”) was in attendance. He incorrectly understood that he could present the Complainant’s case in her absence. In the circumstances, I adjourned the matter for another Hearing date.
On 1 October 2024, the Complainant attended, however the Complainant’s Representative could not attend for medical reasons. The Complainant’s Representative’s colleague, Mr. Dylan Mooney, sought an adjournment. He submitted that it would be prejudicial to the Complainant if the Hearing proceeded as, inter alia, he could not access the relevant documents. In the circumstances, I adjourned the matter for another Hearing date.
On 11 February 2025, the Independent Workers’ Union emailed the WRC to indicate that it was coming off record for the Complainant.
On 12 March 2025, the Complainant did not attend the Hearing. Metron Stores Limited t/a Iceland (in liquidation) (the “Respondent”) also did not attend.
Case Management Conference:
A Case Management Conference concerning a number of complaints, including this complaint, was held on 19 December 2023. The Independent Workers’ Union attended on behalf of the Complainant and JW Accountants attended on behalf of the Respondent. The Parties agreed the Respondent’s correct name, as indicated above.
Background:
On 31 August 2023, the Complainant filed a Complaint Form with the WRC in which she alleged, inter alia, that she had not been paid the full amount that was due to her in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended; and that she was unfairly dismissed, in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. In a letter from the WRC dated 28 January 2025, the Complainant’s Representative was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 12 March 2025. The same letter set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. On 11 February 2025, the Complainant’s Representative came off record for the Complainant. On 5 March 2025, the Complainant was emailed details of the remote Hearing and asked to confirm participants’ details. The Complainant did not respond. On 10 March 2025, the Complainant was emailed log-in details for the remote Hearing. The Complainant did not respond. On 12 March 2025, the Complainant did not attend the Hearing. The WRC called the Complainant three times but there was no reply. The WRC left a voicemail, asking for a call-back, however the Complainant did not reply. When the Complainant did not attend the Hearing, a grace period was allowed to enable the Complainant to attend or contact the WRC. She did not do so. On 22 May 2025, the WRC sent a letter to the Complainant by post and email. The letter outlined that the Complainant had not attended the Hearing. The letter further outlined that unless the WRC heard from the Complainant within seven days, a decision would be issued in this matter and the file would be closed. The Complainant did not contact the WRC. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent. On 19 December 2023, during the Case Management Conference, the Respondent’s correct name was confirmed and it is reflected in this Decision. In a letter from the WRC dated 28 January 2024, the Respondent was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 12 March 2025. The same letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. On 5 March 2025, JW Accountants emailed the WRC. They confirmed that Mr. Joseph Walsh was appointed Liquidator of the Company (the “Liquidator”) on 7 September 2023, by Order of Mr. Justice Quinn of the High Court. They further confirmed that as this complaint relates to matters which predate the Liquidator’s appointment, he is not familiar with the background to the complaint and therefore is not in a position to attend or assist in the Hearing. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the Hearing and decided not to attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the Hearing but did not attend. I am also satisfied that the WRC has made sufficient effort to contact the Complainant who has not engaged. The Complainant failed to attend the Hearing as scheduled and failed to present any evidence in support of her complaints. In the circumstances, I find that the payment of wages complaint is not well founded. I also find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. CA-00058592-001 – Payment of Wages Complaint: For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00058592-002 – Unfair Dismissal Complaint: For the reasons set out above, I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
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.
CA-00058592-001 – Payment of Wages Complaint: For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00058592-002 – Unfair Dismissal Complaint: For the reasons set out above, I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Dated: 04/06/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act 1991, Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997-2015, Non-Attendance. |