ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057066

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Alessandro Mendes Martins	Ocs (One Complete Solution Limited)

Representatives

Did not attend

Naledi Bisiwe IBEC

Complaint(s):

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-00069432-002	21/01/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00069432-003	21/01/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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 parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.

The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing. The Respondent was represented by Ms Naledi Bisiwe, Ibec and Ms Natalie McGrath, Head of HR, OCS. While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Alessandro Mendes Martins as “the Complainant” and to OCS (One Complete Solutions Limited) as “the Respondent.”

The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.

Background:

The Complainant worked for the Respondent from 29/08/2022 until he resigned on 23/01/2024 as a General Operative Cleaner. The Complainant worked 22 hours per week and was paid the national minimum wage.

The Complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC on 21/01/2025 seeking adjudication under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and Section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

The Respondent submits that it concluded a full and final settlement agreement with the Complainant on 15/03/2024. The Respondent also submits that the Complainant previously submitted a complaint to the WRC in relation to unfair dismissal on 18/07/2024 and a decision was issued in relation to that complaint on 17/02/2025 and he did not appeal this decision. It is the Respondent’s position that these claims are not properly before the WRC given the existence of a settlement agreement and the fact that the unfair dismissal complaint was previously dealt with and determined by the WRC. In addition to this the complaints are statute barred as they fall outside the cognisable period for the referral of such complaints to the WRC.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not provide any written submission, and he did not attend the hearing as scheduled. No postponement request was received from the Complainant.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent provided the WRC with a written submission. The Respondent’s Head of HR and its representative attended the hearing and were prepared to defend its position in relation to these complaints.

Findings and Conclusions:

I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements on 23/09/2025. I find that his non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue these complaints to be unreasonable.

In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and Section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 I find these complaints are not well-founded.

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-00069432-002: 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 I find this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00069432-003: In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 I find this complaint is not well-founded.

Dated: 28-10-2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Non-attendance.