ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00064568
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Amy Deady | Ardonagh Group Holdings Limited |
Representatives | Self-Represented | MP Guinness B.L., instructed by Michael Doyle A&L Goodbody LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00078497-001 | 11/12/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00078497-002 | 11/12/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00078497-003 | 11/12/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 4 of the Protection of Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, 1998 | CA-00078497-004 | 11/12/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant accepted that the incorrect entity had been named when lodging these complaints. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The representative for the respondent submitted that the incorrect economic entity had been named when submitting these complaints. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The representative for the respondent submitted that the incorrect economic entity had been named when submitting these complaints. The complainant accepted that the incorrect entity had been named when lodging these complaints. As the incorrect entity was named when lodging these complaints, and in all the circumstances of this case, I am precluded from considering these complaints any further. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Having regard to the evidence submitted by the parties, my decision is that the incorrect economic entity was named in respect of these complaints and I am precluded from considering these complaints any further. |
Dated: 30th April 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Transfer of Undertakings Regulations – Employment Equality – Payment of Wages – Protection of Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act - incorrect economic entity named – precluded from proceeding to hear the complaints |