ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058274
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Roberto Alamazani | Brona Morris |
Representatives |
| Paul McDonald, AJP McDonald Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00070838-001 | 15/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/01/2026 and 23/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Procedure:
In accordance with section 25 of the Equal Status Act 2000,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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.
A hearing into the complaint was first scheduled for an in-person hearing at 11.30am on 8 January 2026 at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing rooms in Carlow. In attendance for the Respondent was Mr Paul McDonald, Solicitor; Ms Bróna Morris, Manager; and Ms Clodagh Daly, Head of Service. The Respondent party were ready to defend the claim. The Complainant did not attend the hearing.
The Complainant phoned the WRC one hour prior to the hearing to say he was unwell and could not attend the hearing. The WRC Postponement section requested a medical certificate to be submitted on or before close of business on 14 January 2026. The WRC did not receive a medical certificate from the Complainant.
The complaint was relisted for another in-person hearing on 23 April 2026. The Respondent was in attendance and ready to proceed with the hearing. The Complainant contacted the WRC in advance of the hearing requesting remote access to the hearing. The Complainant emailed the WRC after the hearing time to confirm that he did not attend the hearing as he was waiting for a remote link to be sent to him. The Complainant was reminded the hearing was in-person as had been notified to him in writing on 30 January 2026. The Complainant confirmed that he was aware that the hearing was in-person, but that he had been waiting for a remote link to be sent to him given he had requested same.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing on 8 January 2026 or on 23 April 2026 to give evidence in relation to his complaint.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was present at the hearing on 8 January 2026 and on 23 April 2026 and was ready to proceed with the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend the first scheduled hearing into his complaint on 8 January 2026. He contacted the WRC one hour before the hearing to state he had become unwell. He was afforded an opportunity to provide a medical certificate by close of business on 14 January 2026. He did not provide a medical certificate as requested.
The WRC allowed the complaint to be relisted for hearing on 23 April 2026. The Complainant did not attend the hearing. He outlined in an email to the WRC on the morning of the hearing that he contacted the WRC on 21 and 22 April 2026 seeking remote access to the hearing but had not received a link. He gave no reason as to why he was unable to attend in person. He was reminded the hearing was in-person. He confirmed he was aware of this.
The WRC Objection to Hearing Arrangements Guidelines (16 September 2024) provides that an objection to the hearing arrangements “must be received by the WRC within 10 working days starting from the date of the hearing notification letter”. If the objection is made later than 10 working days after the date of the hearing notification letter, it will be dealt with by the Adjudication Officer on the day of the scheduled hearing. Decisions on an objection may be made by the WRC with due regard to the interests of justice and fair procedures and with reference to a non-exhaustive list of factors outlined within the guidelines.
While the WRC can decide whether an adjudication hearing will be held in-person or by remote means, all WRC hearing arrangements are subject to the requirement that the arrangements are fair to the parties and not contrary to the interests of justice. Overall, the rationale for an objection must align with the overarching objective of securing a fair hearing for both parties that results in a properly grounded decision.
I note the Complainant did not at any time object to the hearing arrangements as notified to him on 30 January 2026. Rather, days prior to the hearing, he requested remote access to the in-person hearing, stating he could not attend in person, but gave no reason as to why he could not attend in person. The Complainant was aware the hearing was an in-person hearing, and that there had been no change to that arrangement. In light of all the foregoing, I am satisfied that there was no reason for the Complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing on 23 April 2026, and nothing to suggest that an in-person hearing was contrary to fairness or to the interests of justice. Accordingly, as the Complainant did not attend the hearing on 23 April 2026 to give evidence in relation to his complaint, I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
As the Complainant did not attend the hearing on 23 April 2026 to give evidence in relation to his complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), I decide the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 21st of May 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Key Words:
Non-attendance by the Complainant. No objection to an in-person hearing. |