ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052634

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Deirdre Egan	Peamount Healthcare

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

John Moynihan, Solicitor

Kiwana Ennis, B.L., instructed by A&L Goodbody

Complaint:

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-00064511-001	02/07/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/05/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, a hybrid hearing to inquire into this complaint and give the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint was scheduled for 29/05/2025 at 11.00 am in Lansdowne House. This hybrid hearing was facilitated following a request from the Complainant

The Respondent’s representatives and a number of witnesses attended and were prepared to give evidence and defend its position. There was no attendance by the Complainant. There was no contact from the Complainant at the time of the hearing. The Complainant’s solicitor informed the hearing that he had made contact with a family member of the Complainant’s and she was having some difficulty accessing the hearing remotely.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 16/04/2025 advising her of the date, time and venue of the hearing and subsequently provided with details of the remote access arrangements to facilitate her attendance.

In order to exercise a significant amount of caution I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close. The Complainant’s representative confirmed that he understood that the hearing could not proceed without hearing evidence from the Complainant and allowing the Respondent an opportunity to cross examine the Complainant. The Complainant’s representative offered an apology on her behalf.

The Complainant wrote to the WRC a few days later to express her gratitude that a remote hearing was arranged at her request and to apologise for her remote absence. The Complainant expressed a view that she felt that the matter would be adjudicated and finalised.

While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Ms Deirdre Egan as “the Complainant” and to Peamount Healthcare as “the Respondent.”

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a Health Care Assistant with the Respondent from 20/04/1998 until 29/06/2024. She was paid €2,369.00 gross per fortnight. The Complainant submitted a complaint of constructive dismissal to the WRC on 02/07/2024.

The Respondent submits that there was no dismissal constructive or otherwise. She resigned for her own personal reasons and she did not communicate these to the Respondent and she did not utilise the Respondent’s grievance procedure.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant submitted a complaint of constructive dismissal. In such circumstances the burden of proof rests with her to demonstrate that due to the conduct of the Respondent she was entitled to terminate her contract of employment.

The Complainant did not attend remotely and consequently she was not available to give evidence or be cross examined in relation to the complaint of constructive dismissal and her attempts to mitigate her loss.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent rejects the Complainant’s claim and its legal representatives and a number of witnesses attended the hearing to provide evidence if necessary and to be available for cross examination.

Findings and Conclusions:

I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the hearing and log on arrangements. I find that her non-attendance at the hearing to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. This was the fifth scheduled hearing in relation to this case. Three previous hearings were postponed at the request of the Complainant and one was at the request of the Respondent.

In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 at the hybrid hearing find this complaint is not well-founded.

Decision:

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.

In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 10877 at the hybrid hearing on 29/05/2025 I find this complaint is not well-founded.

Dated: 26th June 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words: