ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00005164
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Lifeguard | Hotel |
Representatives | Mr. Cathal Finnegan | Damien Tansey Solicitors LLP |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking Adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts | IR - SC - 00005164 | 13.09.2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Date of Hearing: 23/03/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Worker commenced Employment on 25th September 2024. At all relevant times the Worker role was described as “lifeguard”. The Worker’s employment terminated on 26th March 2025. On 13th September 2025, the Worker referred the dispute 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 Worker 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 Worker was not provided with adequate time to review the submission of the Employer and, secondly, that the Worker had prior work commitments on the day in question. This application was refused on the basis of the Worker 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 Worker had a general work commitment on the date in question, it is apparent that this would qualify as the exceptional circumstances required to ground an application for adjournment on the date of hearing. Finally, while it was noted that the Employer’s submission was received quite close to the hearing date, any application for adjournment on this basis is defeated by the Worker’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 Worker‘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. |
Summary of the Workers Case:
As set out above, the Worker did not attend the hearing of the matter as scheduled. As a consequence of the same, the Worker was deemed to have failed to pursue the dispute |
Summary of the Employer’s Case:
While the Employer stated that they were willing to defend the dispute on its merits, they submitted that in the absence of the Worker, the same must fail. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
Given that the Worker did not attend the hearing as scheduled, I do not recommend in his favour. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.
Dated: 22nd May 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Non-attendance |