ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059626
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Leslie Pamela Castillo Luna | Fallon & Byrne |
Representatives | The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at hearing. | Self-Represented |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00071019-001 | 22/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 conducted in person in Lansdowne House.
While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Lelsie Pamela Castillo Luna as “the Complainant” and to Fallon & Byrne as “the Respondent”.
The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. Ms Eimear Browne People & Culture Business Partner and Mr Belingard Vincent Managing Director attended on behalf of the Respondent.
Having waited a reasonable period of time there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at hearing on 23/10/2025. I am satisfied that the Complainant was duly notified of the details of the hearing on 05/09/2025 in line with WRC procedures. A postponement had not been sought.
Background:
This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 22/04/2025. The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to her employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 23/10/2025.
Having waited a reasonable period of time on the day, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I am satisfied the Complainant was duly notified of the details of the hearing. The Complainant did not attend. A postponement had not been sought.
The Complainant has not availed herself of the considerable resources put at her disposal by the Workplace Relations Commission.
Furthermore, the Complainant’s non-appearance at hearing represents a level of discourtesy to the Commission that is unacceptable and which has put the Respondent to avoidable expense and to the inconvenience of attending at hearing unnecessarily. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-OOO71019-001 There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the adjudication hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-OOO71019-001 The Respondent attended the hearing. In circumstances where the Complainant did not attend there was no requirement for evidence to be presented by the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-OOO71019-001 There was no appearance by the Complainant at the adjudication hearing. I am satisfied the Complainant was notified in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. There was no application for a postponement submitted in the weeks or days preceding the hearing. As of the date of this decision there has been no further communication received from or on behalf of the Complainant. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly |
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
CA-OOO71019-001 For the reasons set out above, I decide this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 30-10-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
Complainant did not attend; |