ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053952
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Daiva Zaguniene | Glen Dimplex Ireland Unlimited Company |
Representatives |
| Ibec |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 | CA-00064492-001 | 21/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 | CA-00064492-002 | 21/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Procedure:
In accordance with s. 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaints.
On 21st June 2024 the Complainant presented two complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). The complaints were scheduled for adjudication via a remote platform on 20th January 2026. The Respondent was in attendance to meet the case. The Respondent’s representative confirmed the correct legal title of the Respondent to be ‘Glen Dimplex Ireland Unlimited Company’. This written decision has been amended to reflect the correct legal title of the Respondent.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. A WRC administrator attempted to contact the Complainant using the mobile phone number provided but was unsuccessful. As there was no appearance by the Complainant I closed the hearing.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the scheduled hearing to give evidence in relation to her complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent presented a written submission to the WRC in advance of the hearing. This submission was copied to the Complainant in advance of the hearing. Management of the Respondent and the Respondent’s representative were in attendance and were prepared to defend the complaint against the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant was notified of the hearing arrangements in accordance with the contact information provided. Notification of the hearing was sent by registered post to the postal address provided; however, this was returned to the WRC. It is matter for the Complainant to inform the WRC of any change to the contact details provided. Notification of the remote hearing arrangements were also issued to the email address provided by the Complainant. A WRC administrator also attempted to contact the Complainant via the mobile phone number provided but had no success. The Complainant did not contact the WRC to indicate any difficulty on her part in attending the remote hearing, or to explain her non-attendance. As the Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing to set out how the Respondent contravened the Protection of Employment Act, 1977 (as amended), I find 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 complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
As the Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing, I decide this complaint under the Protection of Employment Act, 1977 (as amended) is not well-founded. |
Dated: 26th of January 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Key Words:
No show Complainant. |