ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058787
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vanesa Malkina | Mamma Mia, Sweets Beverage |
Representatives | Did not attend | Mohamed Ben Hamed |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00071286-003 | 03/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
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 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.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Miss Vanesa Malkina as “the Complainant” and to Mamma Mia Sweets Beverage as “the Respondent.”
The hearing was scheduled for 26/08/2025 at 09.30am in Lansdowne House. The Respondent attended the hearing. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. There was no contact from the Complainant at the time of the hearing.
I am satisfied that the Complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 09/07/2025 advising her of the date, time and venue of the hearing.
In order to exercise a significant amount of caution I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close and there was no further communication received from or on behalf of the Complainant to indicate that there were difficulties which could explain her non-attendance.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a shop assistant with the Respondent. She commenced employment on 31/01/2025 and resigned on 27/04/2024. She worked 21 hours per week. She submitted a complaint to the WRC on 03/05/2025 seeking adjudication under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. Her specific complaint is that she was not notified of a change to her terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not provide any written submission, and she did not attend the hearing as scheduled. No postponement request was received from the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent and his wife attended the hearing and were prepared to give evidence to refute this complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements on. I find that her non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue this complaint 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 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 I find this complaint is not well-founded. |
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.
In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 I find this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 11th September 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Non-attendance. Terms and Conditions of Employment. |