ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056902
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Indira Kapschinski | Globoforce Limited T/A Workhuman. |
Representatives | Self – represented. | Ms. Lorna Madden, B.L., instructed by McCann FitzGerald LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00069195-001 | 11/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994 | CA-00069195-002 | 11/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. | CA-00069195-003 | 11/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearings: 15/9/ 2025 and 17/02/2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Máire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
I conducted a hybrid hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The parties proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
The hearing was conducted over two days.
The complainant represented herself. She gave evidence under oath on the first day of the hearing.
The respondent was represented by Ms. Lorna Madden, B.L., instructed by McCann FitzGerald LLP. The company in – house counsel, plus four witnesses for the company attended, one of whom gave evidence under affirmation on 15/9/2024.
Background:
The complainant submits that the respondent discriminated against her on the 27/01/2025 contrary to the gender and disability provisions of the Employment Equality Act 1998-2015 and that, furthermore, the respondent contravened the provisions of both the Maternity Protection Act, 1994 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in relation to her. The complainant lodged her complaint with the WRC on 11/02/2025.
A first hearing into the complaints was held on 15 September 2025 at which the complainant and one of the respondent witnesses gave evidence. The hearing was reconvened for 17/2/2026 to allow for further evidence from respondent witnesses. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A hearing was re-convened for the 17/2/2026 to allow the case to proceed, evidence having been taken from the complainant and one of the respondent witnesses on the first day. The complainant emailed the WRC prior to the scheduled hearing advising of her inability to attend due to a family situation. The complainant was advised of the option of seeking an adjournment prior to or at the hearing in accordance with WRC procedures. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent stated that they were in attendance, had witnesses present, and had been prepared to proceed. Given that the complainant had failed to attend, the respondent submits that the complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission from the complainant on 11/02/2025, alleging that the respondent had contravened the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973, and the provisions of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in relation to her. A reconvened hearing for that purpose was held on 17/02/2026. There was no appearance by the complainant at the hearing. The complainant, though notified on the 15/1/2026 of the scheduled hearing, failed to plan to attend, and though advised, chose not to submit an application for a postponement in accordance with WRC postponement guidelines, and emailed the WRC the day before the hearing advising that a family emergency had arisen. No supporting evidence of same was supplied to the WRC In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaints are not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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-00069195-001.Complaint under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I decide that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00069195-002.Complaint under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994. I decide that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00069195-003.Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. I decide that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 03rd of March 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Máire Mulcahy
Key Words:
No show. |