ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054013
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Thomas Creane | Bing Bay Golf and Leisure Limited t/a St Helen’s Bay Golf Resort |
Representatives | N/A | Nicola Murphy, Peninsula Business Services Ireland. |
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-00066013-001 | 16/09/2024 |
Dates of Adjudication Hearing: 08/05/2025 and 17/10/2025.
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 complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The Hearing was initially scheduled for a remote Hearing. This was 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.
The Respondent’s Correct Name:
Bing Bay Golf and Leisure Limited t/a St Helen’s Bay Golf Resort (the “Respondent”) provided its correct name which is outlined above.
Background:
On 16 September 2024, the Complainant submitted his WRC Complaint Form in which he alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed. The Complainant sought adjudication under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015, as amended.
A remote Hearing was scheduled to take place on 8 May 2025. At the commencement of the remote Hearing, the Complainant indicated to the WRC that he was having technical difficulties and that he could not log on. In the circumstances, the Hearing was rescheduled for an in-person Hearing on 17 October 2025. The Complainant did not attend the rescheduled Hearing. The Respondent did attend the rescheduled Hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by, or on behalf, of the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was in attendance. Ms. Anne Byrne, Mr. Liam Hutton and Ms. Genevieve Scallan attended on behalf of the Respondent. Ms. Nicola Murphy of Peninsula Business Services, attended as the Respondent representative. Her colleague, Ms. Sophie Fleming also attended. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In a letter from the WRC dated 20 August 2025, the Complainant was informed of the details of the rescheduled Hearing to take place on 17 October 2025 (the “Hearing Notification Letter”). The Hearing Notification Letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. The Hearing Notification Letter was emailed to the Complainant on the 20 August 2025. The WRC used the email address that the Complainant had provided in his WRC Complaint Form and which he had used in his correspondence with the WRC. When the Complainant did not attend the Hearing on 17 October 2025, a 15-minute grace period was allowed but he did not attend. The WRC also called the Complainant who stated that he did not receive the Hearing Notification Letter. The Complainant indicated that he was having issues with his phone. The Complainant was told that he could email the WRC to explain the situation, if he wished. He did not do so. I note that the Hearing in this matter was rescheduled to accommodate the Complainant and that he did not attend the rescheduled in-person Hearing. I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the rescheduled Hearing. The Complainant failed to attend the Hearing to present any evidence in support of his complaint. In the circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well founded and 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 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.
For the reasons outlined above, I find that this complaint is not well founded and I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Dated: 12th November 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015, Non-attendance. |