ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004145
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Pathology Technician | A hospital |
Representatives | Did not attend | Did not attend |
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 - 00004145 | 17/04/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 04/09/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
This dispute was listed for hearing at 09:30 a.m. on 4 September 2024 in Lansdowne House. There was no appearance by, or on behalf of, either the Worker or the Employer.
I am satisfied that notification of the hearing issued on 8 July 2025 to the representatives of both parties. The correspondence set out the date, time and venue of the hearing. The email address used for service on the Worker was that which she herself had provided and had used for all prior correspondence with the WRC.
In order to exercise caution, I permitted a reasonable period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close. No communication was received from or on behalf of the Worker to explain his absence. Both parties had been advised of the postponement process in the correspondence of 8 July 2025. Neither party availed of this procedure.
In the circumstances, and in the absence of any explanation for non-attendance, I am satisfied that both parties were properly notified of the hearing and afforded an opportunity to attend.
Background:
The Worker submitted his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 17 April 2025. He seeks recognition of additional duties which he contends are “above and beyond” his substantive role. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker or a representative on his behalf did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer or a representative on its behalf did not attend the hearing. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented by the parties. Neither the Worker nor a representative on his behalf attended the hearing. When it became apparent that there would be no attendance, I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close. I am satisfied that the Worker was properly notified of the hearing arrangements and that he was on clear notice of the process available should he have wished to seek a postponement. I find the Worker’s non-attendance at the hearing to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In these circumstances, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker. I recommend that the dispute be considered closed. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I do not recommend in favour of the Worker. I recommend that the dispute be considered closed.
Dated: 18-09-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Non-attendance. No postponement application. |