ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063845
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Igor Cumpanici | Eleventy World Srl - Irish Branch Eleventy |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00077457-001 | 12/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00077457-002 | 12/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00077457-003 | 12/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Procedure:
In accordance with s. 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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.
On 12 November 2025 the Complainant presented the above complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). The complaints were scheduled for adjudication on 14 April 2026 at 10am at the hearing rooms of the WRC Office in Carlow. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant or the Respondent at the hearing. I verified that the Complainant and the Respondent had been served with notice of the time, date, and venue of the adjudication hearing. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. As there was no appearance by the Complainant or the Respondent, I closed the hearing.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing on 14 April 2026 to give evidence in relation to his complaints. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.
The Respondent did not contact the WRC in advance of or in the days following the scheduled hearing to indicate any difficulty with attending the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing on 14 April 2026 to give evidence in relation to his complaints.
The evening prior to the hearing the Complainant contacted the WRC to say he wanted a remote hearing rather than an in-person hearing. An application for a postponement of the hearing was submitted to the WRC on the morning of the hearing.
Postponement and adjournment applications are subject to the “exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons” test. It is clear from the application that on the morning of the scheduled hearing the Complainant was out of the country following a decision to relocate. He stated that he had “intended to attend the hearing remotely from a fixed location”. I am satisfied that the reasons given by the Complainant for his application do not meet the “exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons” test. The hearing arrangements were notified to the Complainant on 28 January 2026. The letter of notification clearly indicated that the hearing was in-person. It was open to the Complainant to engage with the WRC ‘Objection to Hearing Arrangements Guidelines’ any time after 28 January 2026. However, he chose not to do this and instead waited until the morning of the hearing to apply for a postponement of the hearing despite, by his own admission, never intending to participate in an in-person hearing. This was unacceptable and undermined the efficient and effective use of WRC resources.
In conclusion, as noted above, the Complainant’s application for a postponement does not meet the exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons test. Further, I do not regard the Complainant’s explanation as sufficient to excuse his non-attendance at the hearing on 14 April 2026 and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the complaints are not well founded. |
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.
CA-00077457-001 As the Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing to set out how the Respondent contravened the Payment of Wages Act 1991, I decide this complaint is not well founded.
CA-00077457-002 As the Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing to set out how the Respondent contravened the Payment of Wages Act 1991, I decide this complaint is not well founded.
CA-00077457-003 As the Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing to set out how the Respondent contravened the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, I decide this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 21/05/26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Key Words:
|