TED262

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00043817 (CA-00054134-005)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 26 June 2024 in accordance with Section 8(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2014.  A Labour Court hearing took place on the17 February 2026. 

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Condell Construction Limited (the Appellant) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00043817 CA-00054134-005) in relation to a complaint made by Andrew Matthews (the Respondent) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.  The Adjudication Officer found the complaint was well founded.

This appeal, together with six additional linked appeals, was received by the Court on 26 June 2024.

Background to the Appeal Hearing

A Labour Court Hearing set for 19 June 2025 was postponed following a request made by the Appellant company’s representative that he was never notified of the hearing date by the representative organisation engaged by the Appellant company and which came off record in April 2025. The company representative further advised that he was due to undergo medical procedures in July and August 2025 and would not be available to attend a hearing until a few weeks after that timeframe.

A subsequent Labour Court Hearing set for 7 January 2026 was postponed following a request made by the same company representative that he was unable to attend on that date for medical reasons. The representative was advised that no further postponement applications would be granted.

A third hearing date was set for 17 February 2026. The Court engaged in an amount of correspondence with the Appellant company’s representative in advance of that hearing date.

On 5 February 2026, the Appellant company’s representative emailed the Court to say that he was unable to attend the scheduled hearing in person. He stated that he could conduct the appeal by written communication or by phone. He further stated that he would act as “a witness only”.

On 9 February 2026, the Court Secretary replied by email to say that the company representative was listed as the contact person for the Appellant and to request confirmation if another representative had been appointed and provide contact details for same. The Court Secretary further stated that it was possible to facilitate hearings on a remote basis or in a hybrid setting via video link, subject to requirements set out in the (attached) Labour Court Rules, or that, alternatively, a party may request that an appeal be dealt with by way of written submission. The Court Secretary advised that a formal application was required and that the Respondent party would be given an opportunity to comment on any applications made.

On 9 February 2026, the Appellant company’s representative replied to the Court Secretary to say that he wished to make a formal application to have the appeal dealt with by way of written submission.

On 11 February 2026, the Respondent’s representative wrote to the Court, in response to the Appellant’s application to deal with the matter by way of written submission, to say that their client and another witness were ready to give evidence at the hearing scheduled on 17 February 2026, and that their client’s preference was for an oral hearing.

By email on 12 February 2026, the Court Secretary notified the Appellant representative that the Division of the Court assigned to hear the appeal had considered the application and had decided that the matter was not suitable to be dealt with by way of written submissions.  The Court Secretary advised the Appellant’s representative that the hearing remained scheduled for hearing on 17 February 2026 and that it was open to him to make an application to attend the hearing via video link.

By reply, the Appellant’s representative emailed to the Court to say: -

“I’m not agreeable to this and I ask you to discuss this with the other solicitor again (sic)”.

By replying email on 12 February 2026, the Court Secretary notified the Appellant’s representative that the appeal remained scheduled for hearing on 17 February 2026 and restated that it was open to him to make an application to attend the hearing remotely via video link, as previously advised. The Court Secretary further stated that if he needed to apply for a postponement, he could do so by providing the Court with any relevant information in support of that application and that he was required to seek consent from the other side.

The Appellant replied to the Court Secretary by email later that day to say:

“I have sent in my reasons for appeal can the Adjudicator read it and make his decision from the information supplied (sic)”.

On 13 February 2026, the Labour Court Registrar wrote to the Appellant’s representative as follows: -

“The above referenced appeal remains listed for hearing on the 17th of February 2026.

The Labour Court has decided that the appeal is not suitable to be dealt with by way of written submission.

As previously advised to you:

If you are unfit to physically attend the hearing, it remains open to you to make an application for consideration by the Court to attend the hearing via video link. Please see Rules 99 -101 of the Labour Court Rules 2024 which set out the requirements for participating in hearings via video link.

The Court is not in receipt of a medical certificate to say you are unfit to attend on the 17th of February next. If it is the case that you are unable to attend the hearing because you are unwell, you will need to apply for a postponement and provide the Court with any relevant information in support of that application. You will also need to seek the consent of the other side. “

No further communication was received from the Appellant’s representative in advance of the scheduled hearing date.

The hearing on 17 February 2026

The hearing was scheduled to start on Tuesday 17 February 2026 at 10.00. The Respondent attended with his legal representative. There was no appearance by the Appellant at the allocated start time.  The commencement of the hearing was delayed for a period, in case the Appellant made contact and /or was delayed en route to the Court.

The hearing opened at 10.15. The Court outlined the correspondence exchanged with the Appellant and copied to the Respondent in the period prior to the hearing. The Court noted that, in circumstances where the Appellant was not in attendance, it was open to it, having heard from the Respondent, to either adjourn the hearing to an alternative date because of the Appellant’s non-attendance, or to regard the Appellant company’s non-attendance at the hearing as a failure to advance its appeal.

Mr Jack Handrick BL, on behalf of the Respondent, advised that his client opposed adjourning the hearing to another date. He noted that the Appellant was on notice that the hearing was scheduled to proceed on that date and that no formal application was made by the Appellant to attend the hearing remotely by video link or to postpone the hearing on medical grounds. Mr Handrick further noted that the Appellant’s representative had failed to attend the WRC hearing at first instance. Mr Handrick confirmed that his client was in attendance and was ready to proceed and defend the appeal and linked appeals.

The Court adjourned for a period to consider the matter. Where an Appellant does not turn up for the hearing and, no satisfactory explanation is given to the Court for the failure of the Appellant to appear, the Court may determine that the appeal has not been upheld. The Appellant had failed to attend the scheduled hearing to move the appeal.

The Court closed the hearing and advised that it would communicate its decision to both parties.

Deliberation

Rule 41 of the Labour Court Rules 2024, states:

“Where the Appellant does not turn up for the hearing and, no satisfactory explanation is given to the Court for the failure of the Appellant to appear, the Court may determine that the appeal has not been upheld”.

In coming to the decision in relation to this appeal, the Court took account of the following:

1. The appeal, and linked appeals, were received by the Court on 26 June 2024.
2. The Appellant’s representative was listed as the contact person on the appeal form.
3. Hearing dates set for 19 June 2025 and 7 January 2026 were postponed following applications made by the Appellant representative.

4. The Court was satisfied that the Appellant was on notice of the hearing date and time on 17 February 2026.
5. The Appellant’s representative was in regular email contact with the Court on the days prior to that hearing date.
6. The Appellant’s representative advised the Court that he could not attend the hearing in person and suggested that he attend by phone or have the matter dealt with by submission.
7. The Appellant’s representative was advised of the process for making a formal application to attend the hearing via video link and for requesting that the matter be dealt with by written submission.
8. The Division of the Court assigned to hear the appeal considered a subsequent application made by the Appellant that the appeal be dealt with by written submission. It decided that the matter was not suitable to be dealt with by way of written submissions.
9. The Appellant was again advised of the option of attending the hearing via video link but did not submit a formal application to do so in advance of the hearing.
10. The Appellant was also advised of the process for submitting a postponement request in advance of the hearing, if unable to attend due to illness, but did not do so in advance of the hearing.

1. No evidence or medical certification was submitted to say that the Appellant’s representative was unfit to attend or to participate in the hearing on 17 January 2026. 

1. The Appellant made no contact with the Court following correspondence sent to him on 12 and 13 February 2026.
2. The Court was satisfied that the Appellant was aware that the hearing was set to proceed as scheduled on 17 February 2026.
3. The Respondent was present at the hearing, was represented at the hearing, and ready to proceed.
4. The Respondent submitted that the hearing should not be postponed or adjourned and that the appeal be adjudicated by the Court as not well founded.
5. The Court is fully satisfied that the Appellant was aware of the date, time and place of the hearing. The Appellant provided no satisfactory explanation for not appearing at the scheduled hearing of the appeal.

The Court having considered all the above did not believe that justice would be served by postponing the hearing. The requirement for fairness and equity must apply to both parties. The Court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, a further delay in the hearing of the within appeal would be contrary to the parties right to a fair and expeditious trial and to have their rights and obligations determined within a reasonable timeframe.

An appeal to the Labour Court is heard as a de novo appeal. As the Appellant did not attend the hearing to move the appeal, the appeal fails, and the Court finds that the complaint under the Act is not well founded.

Decision

The Appellant was not present to move the appeal. The appeal fails.

The complaint under the Act is not well founded.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AM	______________________
19 February 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.