ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061862
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Dr Ahmed Rady | Teagasc, Agriculture and Food Development Authority |
Representatives | Did no attend and was not represented | Tanya Egan, ER Manager |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00075521-001 | 18/09/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals and only broad reasons need be given. I am required to set out such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
The parties in attendance were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury; accordingly, were advised of the penalty for perjury
Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private.
For the Complainant, the hearing was not attended, and the Complainant had not sought a postponement nor sent a representative to apply for an adjournment.
For the Respondent the hearing was attended by Ms Tanya Egan and Mr Raymond Kelly, Head of Research Support.
On the non-appearance of the Complainant the Commission attempted to contact the Complainant on the phone number provided on his complaint form, but the number did not appear to be connected.
I awaited a further 20 mins for an appearance, having checked with reception if the Complainant had signed in and I was informed they had not.
On that basis the hearing was legally opened without the Complainant nor any representative on behalf of the Complainant.
The hearing legally closed after approximately a further 20 minutes with still no appearance of the Complainant.
I am satisfied that the Complainant was on full and proper notice of the hearing date, time and location as were the Respondent attendees who travelled from their Head Office to present themselves at the hearing.
I did not issue my decision immediately and delayed allowing the Complainant an opportunity to explain and excuse to the Commission , on their non-appearance.
I received submission form both parties, from the Complainant to explain and excuse their non-appearance and not notifying the Commission of the same and a responding submission from the Respondent. Both of these have been considered in my decision below.
Background:
The Complainant referred an employment rights complaint to the Commission in September 2025. His employment with the Respondent commenced in August 2021 on a fixed‑term basis, linked to an externally funded research grant. The Complainant submitted an RP77 form to the Respondent seeking a statutory redundancy payment. The Respondent determined that he was not entitled to a redundancy payment. The Complainant disputes this determination, contending that his service was continuous for approximately 47 months and that his role has not been replaced. He has accordingly lodged a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967–2014. The Complainant did not attend the scheduled adjudication hearing. After waiting approximately forty minutes, during which the Complainant remained uncontactable and no application was made to postpone or vary the hearing arrangements, the hearing proceeded in his absence. I deferred issuing my decision to afford the Complainant an opportunity to provide an explanation and seek to excuse his non‑attendance. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Non-Attendance The Complainant did not appear to present their case to the Commission. In line with my directions to the parties following this non-attendance they were invited to explain and excuse their non-attendance and the following is the submission from the Complainant. Complainant Submission of Explanation. The Complainant apologises for not attending the hearing concerning his claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967–2014. He states that he has been employed as an instructor at a US college, since August 2025 and that his full teaching schedule made travel to Ireland impracticable. He further submits that he received notice of the hearing on 26 January 2026, which did not allow sufficient time to make travel arrangements, and that he was unaware that physical attendance was required. The Complainant confirms that he wrote to the Commission on the same day he received notice of the hearing and states that he did not receive a phone call during the hearing as it took place at 4:00 am Central Time while he was asleep. He advises that he has no representative to attend on his behalf and requests that, if possible, he be permitted to participate remotely. He indicates his willingness to provide supporting documentation and to cooperate fully with the Commission. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent rejects the substantive complaint in its entirety and contends that that the excuse offered for non-appearance is insufficient. Respondent Response The following sets out the comments the Respondent would like to make in relation to the Complainant explanation for non-attendance at the Adjudication Hearing on 28th January. The Respondent submits that all parties were notified of the hearing date on 9 January 2026 and contends that the Complainant was therefore on adequate notice. The Respondent states that correspondence sent by the Complainant on 23 January 2026 demonstrates awareness of the hearing date earlier than claimed. The Respondent further notes that the Complainant was contacted directly by the WRC on 26 January 2026 regarding the hearing date and time. The Respondent submits that, despite this notice, the Complainant made no prior contact with the WRC to seek clarification, request a postponement, or apply for alternative arrangements, including a remote hearing. The Respondent maintains that it is the responsibility of each party to familiarise themselves with WRC procedures and to notify the Commission where attendance is not possible. Accordingly, the Respondent requests that the usual approach of issuing a decision in the absence of a party be applied. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Attendance at a WRC Hearing is not a matter to be taken lightly by any party and it is high bar to explain an absence. I note from the Commissions files that the Complainant was written to and put on notice well in advance of the hearing and it is entirely the responsibility of the parties to familiarise themselves with the procedures and act accordingly or, in the alternative, appoint a competent person to manage their affairs. It was open to the parties to make an application in line with the procedures of the Commission for an adjournment through the proper channels or to seek a remote hearing. There is no record of either in advance of the hearing. The Complainant contends that they had written with a query the day before the hearing. I must also note that all emails to both parties contain the line “Correspondence should only be directed to the central mailbox pru@workplacerelations.ie and not by reply to the sender of this email. ” This is the case where the Complainant responded to a named email address and not the correct stipulated email address of pru@workplacerelations.ie, had he done so he would have been dealt with promptly. I have afforded the Complainant and opportunity to make an application to explain and excuse their nonattendance and in the interests of fairness and justice, for the Respondent to respond. The Complainant has explained their absence in that they reside abroad at this time. This does not excuse their failure to make submissions and applications for postponement and changes in format. I cannot find that the Complainant has excused their non-attendance where they have had adequate notice. I have to agree with the Respondent that it is the responsibility of each party to familiarise themselves with WRC procedures and to notify the Commission where attendance is not possible in good time. Accordingly, with the non-attendance, without reasonable excuse, I have to find that the 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 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
The complaint is not well founded for the reasons outlined above. |
Dated: 28th of April 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Key Words:
Non‑attendance, |