ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061413
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Robynne McLean-Bosch | Holland & Barrett Retail Ltd |
Representatives |
| IBEC |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00074162-001 | 07/08/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/09/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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:
It was the Complainant’s referral that she was not notified of a change to the terms and conditions of her employment.
The Respondent attended with its witnesses and representative, Ms. Sarah Dowling of IBEC.
Submissions and documentary evidence were received by both parties in advance of the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
After waiting for a reasonable period time there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. An email was received from the Complainant at 06.34am on the morning of the hearing advising that she wished to place the matter on hold due to ongoing health issues. No medical certificate or any specific details as to why she was unable to attend at the remote hearing were set out in the email. Despite her request it is also noted that she was available to engage in talks directly with the Respondent. It was noted that the Complainant had previously sought a postponement which was granted where the correct procedure was followed on 3 March 2026. In conclusion, the Complainant was fully aware of the hearing date, was aware of the postponement procedure and despite being unable to attend the hearing was open to the possibility of settlement. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denied the complaint in full. It raised a preliminary objection that there was no change in contract. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of the Complainant to prosecute her complaint, I find it 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.
I find it not well founded. |
Dated: 09/09/26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
|