ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054929
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Layla Pryscila Bernardino Kastelic | Homefare Services Ksg |
Representatives |
| Robert Jacob Jacob and Twomey Solicitors LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00066313-001 | 27/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 27 September 2024 Ms. Kastelic (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 and following the referral of the case to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 28 August 2025 to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence the parties deemed relevant.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.
Homefare Services KSG (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) was represented at the hearing by Mr. Robert Jacob, Solicitor. Ms. Sarah Walsh, HR Manager and Ms. Jennifer Carrick, HR Business Partner attended on behalf of the Respondent.
Background:
The Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of race and that she was harassed while in employment with the Respondent. She submitted that the last occurrence of discrimination took place on 4 March 2024.
The Respondent is food service provider. The Respondent denied the allegations set out in the complaint.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was present and prepared to outline its’ position at the hearing but in the context that there was no Complainant present to move the complaint this proved unnecessary. The Respondent had also provided a detailed submission in advance of the hearing.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Although the Respondent was present on the day of the hearing, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant.
On the day of the hearing the Complainant’s attendance was awaited for in excess of 20 before I closed the hearing and dismissed the Respondent representatives. Approximately 25 minutes after the start time of the hearing the Complainant attended the WRC, at which time I advised her that I had already closed the hearing as there had been no contact from her to explain her absence. I am satisfied that the Complainant had received proper notice of the scheduled time of the hearing, and it is the responsibility of parties before the WRC to present on time for a hearing. In the alternative, if an individual suffers an unavoidable delay, it is their responsibility to make contact with the WRC to explain their delay. As the Complainant was not present to move her complaint, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
|
Decision:
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.
For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
|
Dated: 12th November 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054929
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Layla Pryscila Bernardino Kastelic | Homefare Services Ksg |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Robert Jacob Jacob and Twomey Solicitors LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00066313-001 | 27/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 27 September 2024 Ms. Kastelic (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 and following the referral of the case to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 28 August 2025 to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence the parties deemed relevant.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.
Homefare Services KSG (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) was represented at the hearing by Mr. Robert Jacob, Solicitor. Ms. Sarah Walsh, HR Manager and Ms. Jennifer Carrick, HR Business Partner attended on behalf of the Respondent.
Background:
The Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of race and that she was harassed while in employment with the Respondent. She submitted that the last occurrence of discrimination took place on 4 March 2024.
The Respondent is food service provider. The Respondent denied the allegations set out in the complaint.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was present and prepared to outline its’ position at the hearing but in the context that there was no Complainant present to move the complaint this proved unnecessary. The Respondent had also provided a detailed submission in advance of the hearing.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Although the Respondent was present on the day of the hearing, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant.
On the day of the hearing the Complainant’s attendance was awaited for in excess of 20 before I closed the hearing and dismissed the Respondent representatives. Approximately 25 minutes after the start time of the hearing the Complainant attended the WRC, at which time I advised her that I had already closed the hearing as there had been no contact from her to explain her absence. I am satisfied that the Complainant had received proper notice of the scheduled time of the hearing, and it is the responsibility of parties before the WRC to present on time for a hearing. In the alternative, if an individual suffers an unavoidable delay, it is their responsibility to make contact with the WRC to explain their delay. As the Complainant was not present to move her complaint, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
|
Decision:
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.
For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
|
Dated: 12th November 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|