ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061297
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Atul Sengar | Roseville Wine House Ltd. |
Representatives | Did not attend | Eamonn Gibney, HR Representative |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00074028-001 | 03/08/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00074028-002 | 03/08/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 | CA-00074028-004 | 03/08/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. | CA-00074028-005 | 03/08/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00074028-008 | 03/08/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Atul Senga as “the Complainant” and to Roseville Wine House Limited as “the Respondent.”
The parties’ respective positions are summarised below followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 04 April 2025. He resigned on 12 July 2025 after a number of events with which he took issue. He worked 13.07 hours per week and was paid €14.50 per hour.
The complainant submitted a number of complaints under various employment legislation to the WRC on 03 August 2025.
A remote hearing was scheduled for 30 June 2026 and the complainant and respondent were advised of the date, time and connection details. The respondent and a HR representative attended the hearing and were prepared to enter a full defence of all the complaints.
The complainant did not attend the hearing and the WRC tried to contact him at the time that the hearing was due to commence but he was not contactable. There was no postponement application received from the complainant.
After waiting for a period of time the hearing was brought to a conclusion on the basis that the complainant failed to attend. There was no subsequent contact from the complainant to explain his non-attendance. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted a number of complaints to the WRC on 03 August 2025 alleging breaches of various employment rights. He failed to attend a remote hearing on 30 June 2026 in relation to his complaints. He did not seek a postponement or make contact to explain his non-attendance. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was represented by Eamonn Gibney, Human Resources Representative. The owner, Peter Power, also attended and was prepared to defend all the complaints. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant provided an email address on his complaint form when he lodged his complaints on 03 August 2025 and gave the WRC permission to notify him of the hearing date via that email address. The complainant communicated various queries to the WRC using that email address. A hearing notification was sent to that same email address on 11 May 2026. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the hearing and failed to attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements. I find that his non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue his complaints was unreasonable. In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the Complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under: (1) Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, (2) Section 27 Of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, (3) Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (information) Act 1994, (5) Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and (6) Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time) Work Act 1994; I find these complaints are not well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00074028-001; Complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. I find that this complaint is not well-founded. CA-00074028-002; Complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. I find that this complaint is not well-founded. CA-00074028-004; Complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001. I find that this complaint is not well-founded. CA-00074028-005; Complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. I find that this complaint is not well-founded. CA-00074028-008; Complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I find that this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 16-07-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Non-attendance. |