Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Luke  Thompson

Abbey Hotel

Representatives

Mr. Cathal Finnegan

 Damien Tansey Solicitors LLP

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00075395-001

13/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00075395-002

13/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00075395-004

13/09/2025

The Complainant commenced employment on 25th September 2024. At all relevant times the Complainant role was described as “lifeguard”. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 26th March 2025.

On 13th September 2025, the Complainant referred the present set of complaints to the Commission.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 23rd March 2026. This hearing was held in the Commission’s Silgo offices.

There was no appearance by the Complainant at the hearing as scheduled. Nonetheless, his appointed representative appeared and advanced an application for adjournment on his behalf. This application was grounded on two factors, firstly that the Complainant was not provided with adequate time to review the submission of the Respondent and, secondly, that the Complainant had prior work commitments on the day in question. This application was refused on the basis of the Complainant failing to apply for an adjournment in advance of the hearing date, in accordance with the relevant guidelines in respect of the same. While it was noted that the Complainant had a general work commitment on the date in question, it is apparent that this would qualify for the exceptional circumstances required to ground an application for adjournment on the date of hearing. Finally, while it was noted that the Respondent’s submission was received quite close to the hearing date, any application for adjournment on this basis is defeated by the Complainant’s non-attendance at the hearing. This ruling was communicated verbally to the parties at the hearing of the matter. In the weeks following the same, the Complainant ‘s representative forwarded various authorities demonstrating, in his view, that the matter should be re-listed. Apart from the clear impropriety of engaging in an appeal of the earlier ruling, it is noted that authorities furnished do not materially relate to the ruling outlined above.

As set out above, the Complainant did not attend the hearing of the matter as scheduled. As a consequence of the same, the Complainant did not provide any sworn evidence in support of his complaints, and on this basis, the same are deemed to be not well-founded.

While the Respondent stated that they were willing to defend the complaints on their merits, they submitted that in the absence of sworn evidence on the part of the Complainant, the same must fail.

In circumstances whereby the Complainant did not attend the hearing to prosecute his complaints, I find that the same are not well-founded.

CA-00075395-001 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00075395-002 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00075395-004 – Complaint under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Non-attendance, Adjournment,