PWD2536

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00044807 (CA-00055100-003)

BACKGROUND:

This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act,

1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. 

The following is the Court's Decision:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by (Hasan) Mohammed Arafa (the Complainant) against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Payment of Wages Act,1991(the Act) in respect of his claim against his employer TikTok Technology Limited (the Respondent). The claim was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 14 February 2023 and on appeal to the Labour Court on 26 May 2025. The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well founded. The complaint was listed for a hybrid hearing at 10.00am on 19 September 2025.

A postponement request was emailed to the Court at 9.48pm by the Complaint on 17 September 2025.  This application did not indicate (as required) whether the other party consented to the postponement. This application was received by the Court at commencement of business on 18 September 2025. The Respondent was contacted at 9.25am to establish if they consented to the postponement. By email at 11.16am the Respondent replied to the Court and the Complainant indicating their objection to the postponement. The basis for their objection was a) that the flight details provided were in respect of a flight that had been cancelled, b) the Complainant had on a number of occasions particularly at first instance sought to delay the proceedings, and c) no details of the death of his grandfather had been provided.

The Court considered the application taking into consideration the submissions of both parties and refused the application for a postponement. Notification of the refusal of the postponement issued to both parties at 12.16pm on 18 September 2025.  At 4.33pm further correspondence was received from the Complainant again seeking a postponement and indicating that he had that morning re booked his flight for an afternoon flight on 19 September 2025. At 5.03pm the Employer emailed the Court and the Complainant to confirm they still objected to the postponement.  The Complainant submitted further documents at 9.59pm. On 19 September 2025 the Court having had the opportunity at that stage to consider the additional documents, emailed both parties at 8.54am to confirm the hearing was proceeding at 10.00 as scheduled.

In coming to the conclusion to proceed as scheduled, the Court noted that the Complainant resided in close proximity to the Court (approx. 30-minute commute) and the Complainant’s flight was not until the afternoon. The Complainant also had the option of attending the hearing remotely and making a further application at that time.   No response was received from the Complainant to the Courts email on 19 September 2025 confirming the hearing was proceeding.

When the hearing was called at 10.00am the Complainant was not present. The Court secretary attempted to contact him on the mobile phone number that he had provided, but the number was disconnected. The hearing proceeded at 10.15am. The Respondent was present with their witness who had travelled from the U.K. Further correspondence was received from the Complainant after the hearing had closed. 

As the Complainant was not present to move his appeal, the appeal fails, and the Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AL	______________________
25 September2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.