ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00064047
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Hailey O Shea | Planet Health Club |
Representatives | No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant | Denis Lynch |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00078070-001 | 28/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 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.
Background:
On 28 November 2025, the Complainant a Personal Trainer submitted a complaint to the WRC on not receiving her statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of her employment on 26 November 2025. On 2 December 2025, the WRC acknowledged receipt of the complaint. The Complainant was requested to: “Please check that the specific complaints stated above reflect all the issues you wish to raise with the WRC.” On 3 December 2025, the Respondent, a health club was placed on notice of the complaint. On 15 December 2025, the Respondent disputed the claim and forwarded pay slips in proof for week 49 and 50 over the first two weeks in December 2025. The Respondent emphasized that wages, notice and holiday pay had been discharged by pay path. This correspondence was forwarded to the Complainant on 7 January 2026.
On 18 February 2026, both parties were invited to attend a hearing. This hearing was scheduled for 23 March 2026, 2026.am in Cork. The Complainant sought permission to bring a relative as her support to hearing, which was permitted on 23 February 2026.
Submissions were awaited from both Parties.
On March 5, 2026, the Respondent once more disputed the claim made. On this occasion, a complainant’s employment was submitted alongside a chronology of the complainant’s employment which spanned January -November 2025.
The Respondent was the sole presence at hearing. I have waited five days post hearing in case the complainant had an adequate reason for her non-appearance. I have not heard anything further from the complainant . |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant compiled her complaint form and submitted this form to the WRC on 28 November 2025. She outlined an employment as a Personal trainer which spanned 6 January 2025 to 26 November 2025 in respect of a 37.5 hr week. Her claim related to her not having received statutory minimum notice under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The narrative which followed was templated and sought to depart from the fabric of the above complaint. While the complainant sent in some random pages which appeared to originate in her employment, she did not compile a requested written submission in her case. The narrative reflected her unhappiness in her role. On March 19, 2026, the Complainant contacted the customer service of the WRC. She submitted that she wished to cancel the hearing “as I put it under the wrong heading “……I just feel there is no reason for me to go ……” I was approached for input. As the claim had not been withdrawn, I advised that the complainant should attend the hearing and any issue of legislative provision could be addressed as a preliminary issue. The Complainant was advised to contact WRC Information service to “find out about the services we offer and the extent of our powers “ The Complainant did not attend the hearing. She gave no reason for her nonattendance. She has not withdrawn her claim.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent operates a Health Club and has disputed the claim made. The Respondent submitted details on a contract of employment signed by the complainant on 1 December 2025. The Respondent included a letter titled Termination of Employment dated 26 November 2025. “Your notice period is one week, and you shall be paid in lieu of having to work during that period “I found a payment by pay path for 37.5 hrs dated 11 December 2025. At hearing, the Respondent was represented by Denis Lynch, who queried why his previous written submissions had not been sufficient to dispose of the matter? I explained that the Workplace Relations Act 2015 at section 41 requires me to offer an opportunity for both parties to be heard on the claim and the hearing constituted that platform in the absence of postponement or settlement of the claim. (5) (a) An adjudication officer to whom a complaint or dispute is referred under this section shall— (i) inquire into the complaint or dispute, (ii) give the parties to the complaint or dispute an opportunity to— (I) be heard by the adjudication officer, and (II) present to the adjudication officer any evidence relevant to the complaint or dispute, (iii) make a decision in relation to the complaint or dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provision, and (iv) give the parties to the complaint or dispute a copy of that decision in writing. The Respondent came to hearing to rebut the claim made and made no further submission. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have been requested to make a decision in the claim made under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.
It was regrettable that the complainant chose not to attend the hearing in her own case. It is also regrettable that she did not respond to the WRC when they asked if she was satisfied that her statement of claim captured all the complaints she wished to make .
I understand that a complainant can have a change of heart in relation to a complaint made at WRC at any time. It is then perfectly acceptable and prudent to act on that development.
The Complainant has not withdrawn her complaint before the WRC.
She did not come to hearing to open the divergent narrative contained in the body of the complaint as a Preliminary Issue as requested.
As the complainant did not attend the hearing to open her case, I have accepted the proofs relied on by the Respondent that the Complainant received weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and they had no further liability towards her in law.
Section 4 of the Act permits the complainant to receive one weeks’ notice.
Minimum period of notice.
4.— (1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.
(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—
(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,
The Complainant has not opened her case. I can see that she received one weeks pay in lieu of notice.
I have not established a contravention of Section 4 of the Act or any resultant loss.
I can take the matter no further.
In light of the complainant’s absence from hearing, I am unable to engage in the narrative on the remainder of the complaint form.
I have found that the claim made 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. Section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of that Act. I have found that the claim is not well founded.
|
Dated: 01/04/26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Minimum Notice / Nio appearance at hearing |