ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060787
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Karl McCluskey | Usher Insulations Limited Usher Energy Saving Solutions |
Representatives | Did not appear and was not represented | Self-represented. |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00073574-001 | 18/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/02/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
For the Worker the hearing was not attended and he was not represented.
For the Employer the hearing was attended by, the Employer managing Director.
I allowed the parties, present, to make representation to me and, where appropriate, I made my own enquiries. Having asked the attendee, and having satisfied myself, that I had heard all the relevant submissions put to me I formally closed the hearing.
Background:
Complaint CA-00073574 The Worker sets out that the Employer has deliberately withheld a pension scheme (CWPS) from his pay, and it was his understanding that all construction employees must be enrolled in this pension/death in service scheme. The Employer disputes that this is the case and the Worker was not entitled to the benefit of the scheme. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Worker did not attend and was not represented. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Employer disputed the case in its entirety and offered me evidence in relation to both matters. Given the absence of the referring party and that the matter was not being pursued this was not necessary. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The Worker in this case was contacted by the Case Officer the day before the hearing as they had submitted no documentation to pursue their claim/dispute, other than the WRC claim form. They informed the Case Officer that they did not know of the hearing and that they would be at work on the day. The Worker subsequently emailed the commission to state they would not be attending. The Worker did not state that they were withdrawing their complaint and dispute and on that basis the I opened the hearing and allowed for submissions from the Employer. It emerged that the Worker had, at late notice, emailed the Commission to state he would not be attending. This came too late to cancel or otherwise postpone the hearing. I am satisfied that the Worker is on notice of the hearing by letter and phone call from the Commission. Having heard from the Employer and their case in summary; I have to find the matters referred, CA-00073574 is misconceived and not well founded. |
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
For the reasons set out above the complaint CA-00073574-001 is not well founded. |
Dated: 12-05-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Key Words:
|