ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055311
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Samantha Coolings | Sodexo Ireland Limited |
Representatives | Feeney & Corcoran Solicitors | The HR Suite |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00067358-001 | 13/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
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, 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in 2011. The contract held by her employer (the respondent) at her initial place of work ceasedaroundDecember2023. The complainant was transferred to an alternative location of employment under the TUPE. She then returned to the respondent and says she was incorrectly placed on probation by the respondent following her transfer to the new location. The complainant was informed in May 2024 that she was being dismissed as she had not successfully completed her probation. The complainant did not attend the hearing in person but was represented by her solicitor. He advised the hearing that the complainant had been hospitalised over the weekend and had said that she would not be attending the hearing, although the instructions given to her legal representative were unclear. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was represented at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The precise circumstances giving rise to the complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing were unclear.
It appears that she had to attend hospital the previous weekend (the hearing was on a Tuesday).
However, whether or not this had contributed to her inability to attend the hearing was not known to her legal representative who had been put in a difficult position by the failure of his client to provide him with proper instructions.
In the event, I gave directions that the complainant should provide medical certification specifically explaining her reasons for not being able to attend a WRC hearing.
It should be noted that general certification of unfitness for work may not excuse nonattendance at a hearing and the purpose and nature of an event for which a medical certificate is required should be made clear to a certifying practitioner. A person may well be unfit for particular types of work but perfectly fit to attend a hearing.
She was given almost two weeks to provide the certification, and I indicated to the parties that I would, on receipt of it, evaluate whether it was sufficient to excuse her non-attendance and if so, to re-schedule the hearing.
In the event, no certification or explanation of any sort was received from the complainant.
Accordingly, I conclude that she has unreasonably and without proper explanation failed to attend the hearing of her complaint and I decided that it 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.
For the reasons set out above I find that Complaint CA-00067358-001 is not well founded. |
Dated: 4th November 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
|