ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059492

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Kelly O’Sullivan	Mowlam Healthcare (Kilkenny Care Centre)

Representatives

Self-Represented

Robin Hyde of Alastair Purdy LLP

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Part 14 Section 103(55M) of the Health Act 2007	CA-00072066-001	02/06/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/01/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan

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.

At the adjudication hearing I advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and that the decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances for doing otherwise. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the decision anonymised.

While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Kelly O’Sullivan as “the Complainant” and to Mowlam Healthcare (Kilkenny Care Centre) as “the Respondent”.

The hearing of this complaint was scheduled to proceed by way of remote hearing. The Complainant attended and engaged with the hearing initially but disconnected thereafter and did not re-join.

The WRC attempted to contact the Complainant by telephone. These calls were unanswered and a voicemail message was left. The Complainant subsequently sent a text message stating that she had attempted to re-join the hearing but encountered an error and would not be able to return. She requested a new hearing date and acknowledged that such a request might not be facilitated.

Following receipt of this message, further unsuccessful attempts were made by the WRC to contact the Complainant by telephone. The Complainant was requested by text message to provide screenshots of the alleged error messages encountered when attempting to re-join the hearing. No response was received and no screenshots or other evidence of technical difficulty were furnished.

In order to afford the Complainant every reasonable opportunity to participate, I delayed the hearing for a further period. The Complainant did not re-join the hearing and made no further contact during that period.

The Respondent applied to have the complaint dismissed on the basis that the Complainant had failed to prosecute her claim and that no evidence had been provided to substantiate the assertion of technical difficulties.

Following the delay, and after repeated unanswered attempts by the WRC to re-establish contact and after the hearing had been closed, a further text message was received from the Complainant stating that she could not take a call, that she had experienced a panic attack, and that she would not return to the hearing that day.

Findings and Conclusions:

In making these findings, I have considered the oral submissions made on behalf of the Respondent and the communications received from the Complainant in the context of the hearing as a whole.

The Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC on the 2nd June 2025 under the Health Act 2007. The Respondent submitted written submissions and documentation in advance of the hearing which contained a full defence to the Complainant’s complaint. The Respondent attended the hearing and was prepared to present evidence.

I am satisfied that the WRC took reasonable, proportionate and appropriate steps to facilitate the Complainant’s participation in the hearing. While technical difficulties may arise in remote hearings, a party asserting such difficulties is expected to engage with the WRC and to provide supporting evidence where requested.

In this case, the Complainant failed to respond to repeated attempts to re-establish contact, failed to provide any evidence of the alleged technical error when requested to do so, and did not re-join the hearing despite a delay being afforded.

The subsequent message indicating that the Complainant could not proceed on the day was received after the hearing had already been delayed, after reasonable efforts to facilitate engagement had been exhausted and after the hearing had been closed. No medical evidence was provided, no request for accommodation or alternative arrangements was made at a time when engagement could reasonably have been facilitated, and no supporting material was furnished following the hearing.

While I acknowledge that anxiety and distress may arise in the context of legal proceedings, such assertions must be assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances and the extent of engagement with the process. In this case, the Complainant disengaged from the proceedings and did not prosecute the complaint.

I am satisfied that fair procedures were observed. The Complainant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing, including repeated contact attempts by the WRC and a delay to allow reconnection. The decision to proceed in the Complainant’s absence arises not from a single failure, but from a lack of engagement without supporting evidence.

I am also satisfied that the Respondent’s entitlement to fair procedures and procedural finality must be weighed in the balance. Whilst parties must be afforded an opportunity to be heard, there is a corresponding obligation on a complainant to engage with the process and to take reasonable steps to address any difficulty preventing attendance. Where a complainant disengages from proceedings and does not provide objective evidence to support an asserted inability to participate, it is appropriate to proceed in that party’s absence.

In circumstances where the Complainant attended the hearing initially but disengaged from the proceedings and, despite reasonable and repeated efforts by the WRC to facilitate participation, the complaint was not prosecuted, no evidence was before me from which findings could be made under the Health Act 2007. In the absence of any evidence upon which findings could be made, and having afforded the Complainant every reasonable opportunity to engage with the process, I 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.

For the reasons set out above I decide that the within complaint is not well-founded.

Dated: 03-02-2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan

Key Words: