ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00065284

Parties:

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Guilherme Nogueira

C & B Core Recruitment Limited

t/a Bright Recruitment

Representatives

Did not attend

James H Murphy & Son LLP, Solicitors

Complaint:

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-00077523-001	13/11/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/08/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

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.

The parties were advised that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.

The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.

While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Guiherme Nogueira as “the Complainant” and to C & B Core Recruitment Limited as “the Respondent.”

The Complainant, or a representative on his behalf, did not attend the hearing, seek a postponement or provide explanation for his non-attendance.

Background:

The Complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC on 13 November 2025, seeking adjudication under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. He claimed that he was constructively dismissed on 12 November 2025.

He stated that he commenced employment on 6 November 2025 and left that employment on 12 November 2025, while also stating that he had at least 123 months service.

On 25 November 2025, the WRC advised the Complainant that a validation check had raised an issue with his complaint: under Section 2, the Unfair Dismissals Acts do not apply to employees with less than one years’ continuous service, and he was requested to clarify the dates outlined in his complaint form. He did not respond to this request.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant’s complaint of constructive dismissal was submitted to the WRC on 13 November 2025. He stated that he was paid €17.03 per hour and worked a 32-hour week and that his employment ended on 12 November 2025 following an incident.

He made no further submission and did not attend the hearing on 26 August 2026 of which was notified to him on 5 August 2026.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent and its legal representative attended the hearing, prepared to defend this complaint. The Respondent had already put the WRC on notice that as the Complainant lacked the service required to ground a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, it would be seeking to have the complaint dismissed on that basis. The Complainant made no application for an exemption. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant worked three shifts and provided details of the payments made to him.

Findings and Conclusions:

On his complaint form, the Complainant provided an email address and gave the WRC permission to notify him of the hearing date through it. The WRC had used that address to communicate with him throughout, and the hearing notification was sent to the same address on 5 August 2025.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements and I find that his non-attendance, without explanation, was unreasonable.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements. I find that his non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue his complaints was unreasonable.

In the absence of any evidence from or on behalf of the Complainant in support of this complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 I find this complaint is not well-founded.

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.

In the absence of any evidence from or on behalf of the Complainant in support of his complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, I find this complaint is not well-founded.

Dated: 17th September 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Constructive dismissal. Time limit. Non-attendance.