ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00058220

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  02/07/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Dónal Moore, BL

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and afforded the attending parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.

I have carefully considered all of the evidence, both written and oral, and have noted the respective positions of the parties. I am not required to provide a line-by-line analysis of every submission made or to address every argument advanced. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107, wherein it was held that administrative tribunals are not required to provide a minute analysis of the evidence and that broad reasons are sufficient. I am, however, required to set out the evidential material, which is fundamentally relevant to my decision, as outlined by MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63.

The parties in attendance were advised of the decision in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and Others and were informed that evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalties attaching to perjury. The parties were further informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and that the hearing would be conducted in public. No objection was raised by any party, nor was any application made for the hearing to be held otherwise than in public.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

The Respondent was represented by Ms Judy McNamara of IBEC and in attendance were Ms Scully (ER Business Partner) and Ms Moore (Store Manager) on both occasions. As it was not necessary to hear evidence, neither an oath nor an affirmation was administered.

At the originally scheduled hearing on 21 April 2026, the Complainant, Mr Gaffney, attended but his trade union official did not. Having waited 15 minutes without any appearance by, or explanation from, the representative, I asked the Complainant how he wished to proceed. The Complainant indicated that he wished to have the benefit of representation and, in those circumstances, I adjourned the hearing. An apology was subsequently received from the trade union official, who explained that he had been delayed at a Labour Court hearing. The matter was relisted for hearing on 2 July 2026.

On the 2nd of July, neither Complainant nor Representative attended. I waited 15 minutes and asked the Case Officer to call the missing party for which the call went unanswered. The call was returned  later that day, and the trade union official was not on notice and was unaware of the hearing.

The Respondent made an application for me to dismiss the complaint, and I preferred to wait a suitable time in the event a reasonable explanation was made to me of the absences.

Having satisfied myself that all those in attendance had been afforded a full opportunity to make submissions and representations as they wished, and having made such enquiries as I considered appropriate, I was satisfied that there was no further evidence or submission to be received. I therefore formally closed the hearing.

Background:

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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.

Dated:   09/07/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer Dónal Moore, BL

Key Words: