ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055269
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Emmett Delaney | Kingsriver Community Holdings Clg |
Representatives | Self-represented | Adrian Twomey, Jacob and Twomey Solicitors LLP |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00067060-001 | 31/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/09/2025 & 26/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. On 15th September 2025, the hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Carlow. The hearing was attended by the complainant, Mr. Delaney, and Ms. Murphy, C.E.O for the respondent who was represented by Mr Twomey. This hearing was adjourned on the complainant’s application as he only received the respondent submission on Friday 12th September 2025. He said he was not prepared enough to respond to the detailed submission. The Adjudication Officer in granting the adjournment requested that the complainant address the preliminary issues in a written response prior to a rescheduled hearing.
On 26th January 2026, the rescheduled hearing was again held in the Hearing Rooms of the WRC, Carlow. It was attended by Ms. Murphy on behalf of the respondent who was represented by Mr Twomey.
Background:
The complainant, Mr. Delaney, was employed as a gardener from 3rd August 2021 on a Community Employment Scheme sponsored by the respondent. He resigned his employment on 21st December 2023 and submitted a WRC Complaint Form claiming constructive dismissal received on 31st October 2024. The respondent denies the claim in full and raised three preliminary issues. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the rescheduled hearing on 26th January 2026 although he had emailed the WRC earlier that morning stating that he presumed it was an on-line hearing. This possibility of an on-line hearing had been discussed at the earlier hearing on 15th September 2025. The complainant stated in the email that as he had no transport, he would not make the hearing, and he was seeking the hearing to be rescheduled. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing on 15th September 2025 and 26th January 2026. The three preliminary issues raised in their submission in advance of the first hearing were as follows- · The complaint was out of time. · The complainant had not complied with section 53(1) of the Charities Act 1961. · The respondent was not the employer. The respondent representative opposed the application to reschedule the hearing for a second time in circumstances where the complainant had not even made a submission on the preliminary issues as requested by the Adjudication Officer. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Findings In granting the complainant an adjournment on 15th September 2025, it was specifically requested by the Adjudication Officer that he address the preliminary issues raised by the respondent in a written response prior to a rescheduled hearing. Although the possibility of a rescheduled online hearing was discussed with the parties on 15th September 2025, the scheduling of hearings by the WRC is dependent on available resources. The notice of an in-person hearing was sent to the complainant on 3rd December 2025. I am satisfied that the complainant was on notice of the hearing date and venue. The complainant was given every opportunity to progress his complaint when the first hearing was adjourned, and he was granted time to review and respond to the respondent’s submission. He did not respond, nor did he attend the rescheduled hearing. The respondent and their representative made submissions and attended both hearings to answer the complaint. As the rights of both parties need to be considered, I find that it would be unfair to request the respondent side to turn up for a hearing for a third time. The complainant was on notice of the hearing, failed to reply to the respondent submission and then did not attend the hearing. I find that the complainant was given sufficient opportunity to make out his case. For the reasons outlined, I decide that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed and the claim is dismissed. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
I decide that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed and the claim is dismissed. |
Dated: 30/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Constructive Dismissal, No attendance |