CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 41 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00062309 issued on 20th August 2026 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062309
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shannon Clarke | Xdanu |
Representatives | Did not attend | MSS Ireland Limited |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 | CA-00075869-001 | 30/09/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/05/2026 and 18/08/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:
The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 30th September 2025 alleging penalisation in contravention of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005. The matter first came on for hearing on 26th May 2026. On that date, the complainant, who was unrepresented, was unable to state the act(s) of penalisation alleged to have occurred within the cognisable period of the complaint. The complainant was given a period of six weeks to consider her complaint and seek the appropriate advice prior to sending in a submission for a reconvened hearing to be arranged at a future date. The reconvened hearing was arranged for 18th August 2026.
Due to the unavailability of a witness for the respondent, a hybrid hearing was proposed to facilitate the online attendance of the witness. The proposed change in hearing format was to avoid a postponement request from the respondent side. The complainant was notified of the proposed change of format on 13th August 2026 and was asked for her view on same.
In response, the complainant did not offer a view on the proposed change of hearing format but stated she would be happy to postpone the hearing as she had not yet received the legal advice she had sought. The complainant was then sent the postponement guidelines on 13th August 2026 if she wished to seek a postponement of the hearing as there had been no postponement request made at that stage.
The complainant did not seek a postponement of the hearing until the day before the hearing was due to take place and did not attend the adjudication hearing. This application only came to light after the scheduled hearing was due to commence. The commencement of the hearing was subsequently delayed so that the respondent could consider the late postponement request and make a submission on same. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing on 18th August 2026 and was not represented. On the afternoon of 17th August 2026, the complainant sought a postponement of the hearing as she had not yet received the legal advice she had sought in relation to her complaint. In her application the complainant did not include the adjudication reference number on the application which caused a slight delay in identifying the complaint. The complainant has not contacted the WRC since the application for a postponement was made and did not attend the adjudication hearing in the absence of a postponement being granted. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Postponement application: The respondent stated that the initial hearing of 26th May 2026 was adjourned to allow the complainant, who is unrepresented, the opportunity to seek the appropriate advice and/or prepare a submission that outlines her complaint of penalisation. The respondent representative stated that the postponement request for the hearing of 18th August 2026 was for the same reasons despite the complainant having been given considerable time to seek the advice and furnish the WRC and the respondent with the required submission. The respondent representative sough that the complaint be dismissed in circumstances where the complainant has not outlined the basis of her complaint having been given ample time to do so. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant attended the adjudication hearing on 26th May 2026 without representation. While this is not an issue and while the WRC facilitates self-represented parties at adjudication, the complainant was unable to state the act(s) of penalisation alleged to have occurred in the cognisable period of the complaint. In those circumstances and as the complainant did not have the benefit of advice, I adjourned the hearing so that she could appraise herself of the issues that she had referred to the WRC. I clarified what she needed to do prior to the hearing being reconvened and while I declined to speak to her outside of the hearing room, I answered some questions she wished to ask while the respondent and its representative were present in the hearing room. The hearing was reconvened to be heard on 18th August 2026 and in the period since 26th May 2026, the complainant had not furnished the WRC with any clarification in relation to acts of penalisation alleged to have occurred. The complainant also clarified in the week before the hearing that she had not yet received the legal advice she had sought. The complainant did not seek a postponement of the hearing until after 3pm on the afternoon before the hearing and this application was not processed prior to its starting time. The complainant did not attend the adjudication, and no postponement was granted prior to her non-attendance. Having considered the situation and the circumstances described above, I conclude that the complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing when it was scheduled to commence and without a postponement having been granted in advance. In addition, the complainant had been facilitated with a previous adjournment for the purposes of preparing for a reconvened hearing and seeking the appropriate advice which she did not do. |
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.
In all the circumstances of the matter, I must conclude that the within complaint (CA-00075869-001) is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
Dated: 3rd September 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
|
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062309
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shannon Clarke | Xdanu |
Representatives | Did not attend | MSS Ireland Limited |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 | CA-00075869-001 | 30/09/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/05/2026 and 18/08/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:
The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 30th September 2025 alleging penalisation in contravention of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005. The matter first came on for hearing on 26th May 2026. On that date, the complainant, who was unrepresented, was unable to state the act(s) of penalisation alleged to have occurred within the cognisable period of the complaint. The complainant was given a period of six weeks to consider her complaint and seek the appropriate advice prior to sending in a submission for a reconvened hearing to be arranged at a future date. The reconvened hearing was arranged for 18th August 2026.
Due to the unavailability of a witness for the respondent, a hybrid hearing was proposed to facilitate the online attendance of the witness. The proposed change in hearing format was to avoid a postponement request from the respondent side. The complainant was notified of the proposed change of format on 13th August 2026 and was asked for her view on same.
In response, the complainant did not offer a view on the proposed change of hearing format but stated she would be happy to postpone the hearing as she had not yet received the legal advice she had sought. The complainant was then sent the postponement guidelines on 13th August 2026 if she wished to seek a postponement of the hearing as there had been no postponement request made at that stage.
The complainant did not seek a postponement of the hearing until the day before the hearing was due to take place and did not attend the adjudication hearing. This application only came to light after the scheduled hearing was due to commence. The commencement of the hearing was subsequently delayed so that the respondent could consider the late postponement request and make a submission on same. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing on 18th August 2026 and was not represented. On the afternoon of 17th August 2026, the complainant sought a postponement of the hearing as she had not yet received the legal advice she had sought in relation to her complaint. In her application the complainant did not include the adjudication reference number on the application which caused a slight delay in identifying the complaint. The complainant has not contacted the WRC since the application for a postponement was made and did not attend the adjudication hearing in the absence of a postponement being granted. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Postponement application: The respondent stated that the initial hearing of 26th May 2026 was adjourned to allow the complainant, who is unrepresented, the opportunity to seek the appropriate advice and/or prepare a submission that outlines her complaint of penalisation. The respondent representative stated that the postponement request for the hearing of 18th August 2026 was for the same reasons despite the complainant having been given considerable time to seek the advice and furnish the WRC and the respondent with the required submission. The respondent representative sough that the complaint be dismissed in circumstances where the complainant has not outlined the basis of her complaint having been given ample time to do so. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant attended the adjudication hearing on 26th May 2026 without representation. While this is not an issue and while the WRC facilitates self-represented parties at adjudication, the complainant was unable to state the act(s) of penalisation alleged to have occurred in the cognisable period of the complaint. In those circumstances and as the complainant did not have the benefit of advice, I adjourned the hearing so that she could appraise herself of the issues that she had referred to the WRC. I clarified what she needed to do prior to the hearing being reconvened and while I declined to speak to her outside of the hearing room, I answered some questions she wished to ask while the respondent and its representative were present in the hearing room. The hearing was reconvened to be heard on 18th August 2026 and in the period since 26th May 2026, the complainant had not furnished the WRC with any clarification in relation to acts of penalisation alleged to have occurred. The complainant also clarified in the week before the hearing that she had not yet received the legal advice she had sought. The complainant did not seek a postponement of the hearing until after 3pm on the afternoon before the hearing and this application was not processed prior to its starting time. The complainant did not attend the adjudication, and no postponement was granted prior to her non-attendance. Having considered the situation and the circumstances described above, I conclude that the complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing when it was scheduled to commence and without a postponement having been granted in advance. In addition, the complainant had been facilitated with a previous adjournment for the purposes of preparing for a reconvened hearing and seeking the appropriate advice which she did not do. |
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.
In all the circumstances of the matter, I must conclude that the within complaint (CA-0007869-001) is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
Dated: 20th August 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
|