ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060540

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Dagnis Nikovskis	Tadgh Riordan Motors

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Did not attend.

Eoighan Riordan

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00073174-001	07/07/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00073174-002	07/07/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/01/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).

The parties were notified that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.

While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Mr Dagnis Nikovskis as “the Complainant” and to Tadg Riordan Motors as “the Respondent.” The Complainant or a representative on his behalf did not attend the hearing. Mr Eoighan Riordan, Dealer Principal/Director, attended on behalf of the Respondent and provided a written submission in advance of the hearing.

The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a car valeter by the Respondent from 28/04/2025 until he was dismissed on 12/06/2025. He was paid €13.50 per hour. He submitted a complaint (CA-00073174-001) to the Workplace Relations Commission on 07/07/2025 alleging that he was discriminated against on the ground of race and seeking adjudication under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000. A revised complaint (CA-00073174-002) was received on 17/07/2025 seeking adjudication under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant or a representative on his behalf did not attend the hearing. There was no subsequent contact from the Complainant to explain his non-attendance.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

A director of the Respondent attended the hearing and was prepared to defend the complaints. The Respondent had made a written submission.

The Respondent denies that the Complainant was discriminated against and his dismissal was justified given the serious breaches of safety which were a feature of his 46 days of employment. The Respondent also refutes the claim that any money is due to the Complainant arising from his employment. The Respondent provided evidence of all relevant payslips which shows that his wages, overtime payments and annual leave payments were all paid to the Complainant.

Findings and Conclusions:

I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements. I find that his non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable.

In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, I find this complaint is not well-founded.

Decision:

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.

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

CA-00073174-002 In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 I find this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00073174-001: I find that the Complainant did not have the standing to bring a complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 in relation to issues relating to his employment with the Respondent.

Dated: 12-02-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Non attendance