ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00063830

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  23/04/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Ewa Sobanska

Procedure:

In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 as amended, 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 by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

At the time the hearing was to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant. Correspondence informing the Complainant of the arrangements for the hearing issued on 18 February 2026 to the email address provided by the Complainant. I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing to investigate the complaint. There has been no communication from the Complainant indicating any difficulties with attending the hearing or requesting a postponement. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. As of the date of the drafting of this decision there has been no communication from the Complainant explaining her non-attendance.

The Respondent attended the hearing.

At the adjudication hearing, the Respondent was advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. The legal perils of committing perjury were explained.

The Respondent was also advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The Respondent made an application to hear the matter in private and to anonymise the Respondent’s name in the resulting decision.

Section 41(13) of the Workplace Relations Act provides that:

‘Proceedings under this section shall be conducted in public unless the adjudication officer, of his or her own motion or upon the application by or on behalf of a party to the proceedings, determines that, due to the existence of special circumstances, the proceedings (or part thereof) should be conducted otherwise than in public.’

Section 41(14) of the Workplace Relations Act provides that:

‘(a) Subject to paragraph (b), the Commission shall publish on the internet in such form and in such manner as it considers appropriate every decision of an adjudication officer under this section.

(b) In publishing a decision under paragraph (a), an adjudication officer may determine that, due to the existence of special circumstances, information that would identify the parties in relation to whom the decision was made should not be published by the Commission.’

I have considered the Complainant’s application. I note the WRC Guidance on Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 regarding the conduct of the hearings and the matter of anonymisation of a decision. I further take into consideration that Chief Justice O’Donnell in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 noted:

“The rule established under the Constitution is not an absolute one, even for court proceedings, and is not expressly required under Article 37 in respect of the adjudicative processes covered by it. There is a justification for calm, quiet, and private resolution of many disputes which may be of particular sensitivity for the participants, and it may even be permissible to have a presumption in favour of private hearings at first instance, but it is not, in my view, possible to justify the absolute ban contained in s. 41(13), particularly when, on appeal, the opposite provision is made.”

Any elaboration on the grounds underpinning the application in this case would defeat the purpose for which it was made. In essence, the application was grounded in the impact the publication of the Respondent's name could have on her and her family. The Respondent submitted that she and her family had, through no fault of their own, been subjected to significant media attention in recent past owing to their relationship with an individual who was the victim of a widely publicised homicide. The Respondent expressed concern that the publication of this decision, in circumstances where the Complainant did not pursue her claim, could generate renewed media interest and cause further distress and intrusion for her and her family. She therefore sought to minimise any additional exposure arising from the public nature of these proceedings.

I have carefully considered the Respondent’s request. In accordance with subsections (13) and (14) of section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 as amended, I have decided to exercise my discretion to hear the matter in private and to anonymise the parties in the decision due to the existence of special circumstances.

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 in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Dated:   23 July 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Ewa Sobanska

Key Words: