Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rafel Worbel

Woodfarm Fencing Supplies Ltd

Representatives

 N/A

Michaela Lawless of Patrick Hogan & Co. Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00069429-001

20/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00069429-002

20/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022

CA-00069429-003

20/02/2025

The complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission on 20th February 2025. The complaint form alleged breaches of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973; the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 and the Sick Leave Act, 2022.

A remote hearing was scheduled for 10.00am on 2nd September, 2025 which was to take place via Webex platform. At the appointed time it was clear that there was no attendance by the Complainant. After waiting some 20 minutes to allow for any late arrival, the hearing concluded. However, later that afternoon the case officer was made aware that the Complainant had called a general number for the WRC that morning to advise that he could not get logged in to the hearing. In the circumstances, the Adjudication Officer agreed to schedule a further hearing date.

A further hearing was scheduled for 10.00am on Tuesday 10th March 2026, again via Webex platform. At the appointed time, there was again no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant and no communication was received that day. After waiting 20 minutes to accommodate any late arrival, the hearing was concluded.

The Respondent was present on both occasions and ready to proceed with the hearings. I verified that the hearing arrangements had been sent to the contact information provided by the Complainant.  

The Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing and no communication was received from him in advance or on the day.

The Respondent attended the hearing and was ready to respond to the complaints.

On 6th January 2026, the letter for the hearing scheduled on 10th March 2026 was sent to the postal address on record for the Complainant. On 3rd March 2026 an attempt was made to email a hearing link to the email address provided by the Complainant. This email bounced back to the issuing case officer and a hard copy issued by post to the address provided by the Complainant. Further attempts were made to email the Complainant but all mails were returned as undelivered.

A further hard copy letter issued to the Complainant on 6th March 2026 which stated:

“Please see attached invitation to remote hearing with links.  The hearing is scheduled for 10:00am on Tuesday, 10th March 2026.  Attempts were made by the WRC to contact you by your email address but each sent email bounced back.  We also do not have a contact phone number listed for you.”

I am satisfied that all efforts which could reasonably be made to notify the Complainant of the hearing arrangements were carried out. The Complainant had provided a postal address and an email address, but no telephone number. Multiple attempts were made to contact the Complainant at both the postal and email address provided. No response was received to any of these communications. It is incumbent on a party to keep the Commission updated with any change in address or contact details.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that all reasonable attempts were made to notify him of the hearing arrangements.

In the absence of any direct evidence from the Complainant in relation to his complaints, I am unable to progress the matter any further. Consequently, I must find that the complaints are not well founded.

For the reasons set out above, I find that these complaints are not well founded.

Non attendance