Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kelly  O Sullivan

Mowlam Healthcare

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Robyn Hyde of  Alastair Purdy LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

CA-00073856-001

28/07/2025

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 28th July 2025 under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended). 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 did not prosecute the complaint, no evidence was before me from which findings could be made under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Despite reasonable and repeated efforts by the WRC to facilitate participation, the complaint was not prosecuted. I therefore find that the complaint is not well-founded.

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