ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058388
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Kofoworola Sonuga | HSE Addiction Services |
Representatives | No Appearance | David Beegan HSE Dublin and Midlands |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 | CA-00070899-001 | 17/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
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 by and to present to any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This matter was heard by way of a 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 notified of the date, time and arrangements for the hearing. The Respondent attended the hearing. The Complainant did not attend.
The hearing concierge contacted the Complainant by telephone shortly after the scheduled commencement time. The Complainant stated that she was in hospital. She did not indicate that she had emailed the WRC regarding her non-attendance and did not request that the hearing be postponed or rescheduled during that telephone conversation.
In the absence of the Complainant and in the absence of any application for a postponement before me, I decided to proceed with the hearing. As the Complainant was not present to prosecute her complaint, I heard from the Respondent, concluded the hearing and advised that a written decision would issue in due course.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing and did not give evidence in support of her complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted a written response to the complaint, attended the hearing and was prepared to present evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The hearing was scheduled to commence at 1.00pm. At that time, the Complainant was not present. The hearing concierge contacted the Complainant by telephone and the Complainant stated that she was in hospital. She did not indicate during that conversation that she had emailed the WRC regarding her non-attendance. Subsequently, it emerged that, at the same time as she was speaking to the hearing concierge by telephone, the Complainant had sent an email to another individual within the WRC stating: "I am currently in the hospital and can't attend this meeting. Can I reschedule, please? Thanks." The email was not sent to the hearing concierge, was not addressed for the attention of the Adjudication Officer as the Complainant had done with previous correspondence and was not sent to the dedicated postponement email address identified in the hearing letter. Neither I nor the hearing concierge were aware of the email during the hearing. The hearing had concluded before the email was brought to my attention. The hearing letter issued to the parties explained the procedure for seeking a postponement of a hearing and identified the appropriate email address and documentation required for such an application. The Complainant did not make an application for a postponement in accordance with that procedure and provided no explanation for her failure to do so. Moreover, the email provided no information regarding the circumstances giving rise to the alleged hospital attendance, whether it was planned or unplanned, why attendance at the hearing was not possible, or why a postponement had not been sought in advance. No medical evidence or other supporting documentation was furnished either before, during or after the hearing. In those circumstances, I was not satisfied that any basis had been established for postponing the hearing. The Respondent was present and ready to proceed. The hearing therefore proceeded in the absence of the Complainant. The Complainant did not attend the hearing, did not give evidence and did not prosecute her complaint. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has established her complaint and I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
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.
For the reasons set out above, I decide that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 16th of June 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Key Words:
|