ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00064215
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Trust Employee | A Trust |
Representatives | Did not appear and was not represented | Mr Paul Maier, BL, instructed by Mr James Burke, Solicitor |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00077897-001 | 24/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/08/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
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.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the documents put to me. 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 ass in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
The Respondent was represented at the hearing by Mr Paul Maier, BL, instructed by Mr James Burke, Solicitor, and the Respondent was also in attendance. The Complainant neither attended nor was represented.
The commencement of the hearing was delayed affording the Complainant a further opportunity to attend or to communicate any difficulty preventing attendance. No communication was received. Accordingly, I formally opened the hearing. In addition, I allowed a further period of 24 hours following the scheduled hearing time for the Complainant to provide a reasonable explanation for their non-attendance. I have received nothing written in communication to that effect.
I allowed the Respondent and its representatives to make representations. Having satisfied myself that all relevant submissions had been made and that there was no further evidence to be adduced, I formally closed the hearing.
Background:
The complainant was employed in a senior role on a full-time basis. The complaint is brought under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and concerns an allegation that the statement of core terms contained false or misleading information |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not appear and was not represented |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent applied for the proceedings to be heard otherwise than in public and for the identities of the parties to be anonymised in any decision issued. The complainant did not attend the hearing and no explanation for their absence was provided. The Respondent attended and applied for the complaint to be dismissed as not well founded and, alternatively, to be struck out for want of prosecution. The respondent submitted that, in the absence of the complainant or any evidence being adduced in support of the complaint, there was no basis upon which the claim could succeed and that it would be unfair to require the respondent to continue to defend proceedings that were not being pursued by the complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I carefully considered the application for anonymity, and I was satisfied that the application should be granted for the reasons set out by the Respondent. Accordingly, I decided that the hearing was to be conducted otherwise than in public and that any decision issued in respect of the complaint would be anonymised. In a complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the employer failed to comply with its statutory obligations under the Act. Where it is alleged that a statement of core terms or written terms of employment contained false or misleading information, the complainant must identify the specific term complained of and adduce evidence demonstrating that the information provided was inaccurate, false or misleading. The complainant failed to attend the hearing and no explanation for that failure was furnished to me. As no evidence was presented on behalf of the complainant, there was no evidential basis upon which the complaint could be considered or upheld. Having regard to the burden of proof resting on the complainant, I find that the complaint has not been substantiated and is therefore 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.
For the reasons set out above I decide that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 13th of August 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Key Words:
Non-attendance at hearing, Burden of proof, Anonymity
|