ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059558
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ryan Heapes | Principal Facilities Limited Principal Construction / Principal Contractors |
Representatives | Setanta Solicitors | HR Brief Limited |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00072480-001 | 16/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00072480-002 | 16/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00072480-003 | 16/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 | CA-00072480-004 | 16/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00072480-005 | 16/06/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/02/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant’s solicitor attended the hearing, but the complainant did not attend in person. His solicitor confirmed that notice of the hearing had been passed to the complainant but on contacting him the day before the hearing the complainant advised that he was out of the country. It appears that he may have had some expectation of being able to attend remotely. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s representative and management team attended the hearing. The respondent stated that it was a requirement of the procedure that the complainant attend or comply with the WRC postponement requirements if he was unable to attend. Therefore, the respondent objected to any postponement on these facts. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As noted above the complainant failed to attend the hearing despite having been advised of it by his solicitor. Therefore, he was on notice of the date and time of the hearing. While it is not entirely clear what was in the complainant’s mind in respect of his obligations to attend, the onus fell on him to establish clearly what exactly was required, which he could easily have done by contacting his legal representative. The WRC operates guidelines for parties seeking a postponement, and an Adjudicator may also consider applications for a postponement on the day of a hearing where there are exceptional and unforeseeable reasons why a party or a witness has not been able to attend. But they must be exceptional, sudden onset of serious illness, a bereavement either in respect of a party or a key witness or some other emergency. No such reasons were advanced in respect of the complainant‘s failure to attend this hearing and it appears as if he adopted a cavalier approach to the necessity to attend in person to present his complaints. No application was made for a remote of hybrid hearing. Accordingly, I find as follows. A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging breaches of the above statutes and was referred to me for investigation. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing, nor any acceptable explanation for his failure to do so, despite being on notice of the date and time of the hearing In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaints are not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
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.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
For the reasons set out above Complaints CA-00072480-001, 002, 003, 004 and 005 are not well founded. |
Dated: 26TH of February 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
‘No Shoe’ by complainant. |