ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060602
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Alan Purcell | Terra Limited |
Representatives | David O'Riordan Sherwin O'Riordan LLP |
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00073730-001 | 24/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/09/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant undertook to give evidence under affirmation. A solicitor and witness attended the hearing; however, it transpired that the solicitor did not act for the respondent rather acted for an observer attending in a personal capacity. He was not permitted to cross examine the complainant. It subsequently transpired that the complainant had not named the correct legal entity, and no evidence was provided indicating that the complainant was employed by the named respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was not employed by the named legal entity. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant has not named the correct legal entity, and no evidence was provided indicating that the complainant was employed by the named respondent. In the absence of evidence of a working relationship between the complainant and the named respondent I find that the fact of a dismissal has not been established. Having regard to the circumstances of this complaint I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed by the named respondent. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed by the named respondent. |
Dated: 16th of September 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissals Act – incorrect legal entity named – not unfairly dismissed |