ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061340
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Nicole O Donnell | Flanagans Flannagans Ltd |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00074929-001 | 28/08/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 31 March 2026 the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Following the referral of the case to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 31 March 2026 to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence the parties deemed relevant.
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.
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.
The Respondent was represented at the hearing by Mr. Stephen Flanagan and Ms. Sharon Flanagan and had provided a detailed submission in advance of the hearing.
Background:
In her complaint form, the Complainant alleged that she did not receive her paid holiday/annual leave entitlement.
The Respondent denied the allegations set out in the complaint and instead submitted that the Complainant had worked on an as required basis and had received all payments due in relation to annual leave accrued during, what was a short period of employment.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was present and prepared to outline its’ position at the hearing but in the context that there was no Complainant present to move the complaint this proved unnecessary. The Respondent had also provided a detailed submission in advance of the hearing, together with pay slips to show payment for annual leave.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Although the Respondent was present on the day of the hearing, there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant.
On the day of the hearing the Complainant’s attendance was awaited for in excess of 20 minutes and I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for the Complainant to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain her absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made. In the absence of any explanation for the Complainant’s non-attendance, and in the context that I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the arrangements for the hearing, as the Complainant was not present on the day to move her complaint, I must conclude that the within 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(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
|
Dated: 9th April 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|