ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003854

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Worker	A Public Service Body

Representatives

Dispute(s):

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	IR - SC - 00003854	21/02/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens

Date of Hearing: 20/08/2025

Procedure:

On 21 February 2025 the Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace relations act, 2015 and following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 20 August 2025 to afford the parties an opportunity to present to me any information they deemed relevant to the dispute.

It should be noted that the Complainant listed an individual member of staff as the Respondent in this matter, and not his actual employer.

This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020, which designate the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

I awaited the attendance of the parties for 10 minutes beyond the start time but there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant; neither was there any attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent. A representative of the employer did make phone contact with the WRC a short time after the hearing closed to say that he had just been made aware of the complaint and had joined the link for the hearing.

Background:

In his complaint form, the Complainant contended that his complaint was in relation to disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal. In providing specific details of his complaint he contended that he was the subject of serious allegations and that he had sought to have them investigated since early 2022. He alleged that the employer had not concluded that investigation at the date of submission of his complaint.

The Employer is a public service organisation. The Employer did not provide any response to the allegations.

Summary of Workers Case:

There was no attendance at hearing by or on behalf of the Complainant.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

There was no attendance at hearing by or on behalf of the Employer.

Conclusions:

On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the parties for more than 10 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of either party at the hearing.

I noted that the Complainant had contacted the WRC in advance of the hearing to indicate he would not be able to attend due to a medical appointment. I noted that he objected to being asked to provide evidence of the appointment and was sent out the WRC guidelines in relation to requesting a hearing postponement. I further noted that the WRC received no request for a postponement. In circumstances where no such postponement request was received, I must conclude that the Complainant simply decided not to attend.

I noted that a representative of the Employer made contact with the WRC after the hearing had been closed and I noted that he indicated that he had just been informed of the hearing. Notwithstanding that the individual representative was late in being informed, the notice of the dispute was issued from the WRC to the individual named as the Respondent upon receipt, and that individual advised the WRC that all correspondence should be sent to another individual on behalf of the Employer. I noted that the WRC issued notice of the hearing to that named individual within the appropriate timeline. In those circumstance I am satisfied that the Employer was on notice of the arrangements for the hearing. It is an internal matter for the Employer to ensure that appropriate communication happens within the organisation.

In all the circumstances I must conclude that both parties were properly on notice of the arrangements for the hearing. I must also conclude that the Complainant had all the relevant information to facilitate him to seek a postponement where that was required.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint and in the context that I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the arrangements for the hearing and the procedure for seeking a postponement, in the absence of any explanation for his non-attendance, I have no recommendation to make in this matter.

Dated: 11-09-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens

Key Words: