ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058644
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sylvia Lawlor | Valarie Cravan-Grace Beauty Salon Ltd t/a The Guinot Salon Celbridge |
Representatives |
| Annalee Brazel, Peninsula |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00071323-001 | 06/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.
On the 6th of May 2025 the Complainant presented a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). This complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 28th of August 2025 at the hearing rooms of the WRC Office in Carlow. The Complainant did not attend the hearing. The Respondent was in attendance to meet the case. The Respondent confirmed the correct legal title as Valarie Cravan-Grace Beauty Salon Ltd t/a The Guinot Salon Celbridge. This written decision was amended to reflect the correct legal title of the Respondent.
I verified the Complainant had been served with written notice of the time, date, and venue of the adjudication hearing. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. A WRC official attempted to contact the Complainant by telephone on two occasions without success. As there was no appearance by the Complainant, I closed the hearing.
Later that evening the Complainant contacted the WRC official to say that she thought the hearing was the following day and that she had got her dates mixed up. The Complainant gave no reason as to why she may have confused her dates. I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons for the Complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing on the 28th of August 2025. A simple mistake regarding the hearing date is not a substantial reason to reschedule the hearing.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the scheduled hearing to give evidence in relation to her complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent presented a written submission to the WRC in advance of the hearing. This submission was copied to the Complainant in advance of the hearing. Management of the Respondent and the Respondent’s representative were in attendance and were prepared to defend the complaint against the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the Complainant did not attend the scheduled adjudication hearing to set out how the Respondent contravened the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (as amended), I find the complaint is not well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
As the Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing, I decide the Respondent has not contravened the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (as amended). |
Dated: 3rd September 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Key Words:
Complainant did not attend the hearing. |