ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047551

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Grace Carberry	Metron Stores Limited t/a Iceland (in liquidation)

Representatives

N/A

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00058588-001	31/08/2023

Dates of Adjudication Hearing: 28/01/2025 and 19/03/2025.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman

Procedure:

In accordance with section 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 by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The matter was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designates the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Hearing Days:

This matter was scheduled for two Hearing days:

On 28 January 2025, Ms. Grace Carberry (the “Complainant”) and the Independent Workers’ Union (the “Complainant’s Representative”) did not attend the Hearing. The WRC contacted the Complainant’s Representative who indicated that it was not on notice of the Hearing. In the circumstances, the matter was rescheduled for another Hearing date.

On 5 March 2025, the Complainant’s Representative emailed the WRC to indicate that it was coming off record for the Complainant as regards the Complainant’s related case (ADJ-00045217).

On 19 March 2025, the Complainant did not attend the Hearing. Metron Stores Limited t/a Iceland (in liquidation) (the “Respondent”) also did not attend the Hearing.

Case Management Conference:

A Case Management Conference concerning a number of complaints, including this complaint, was held on 19 December 2023. The Independent Workers’ Union attended on behalf of the Complainant and JW Accountants attended on behalf of the Respondent. The Parties agreed the Respondent’s correct name, as indicated above.

Background:

On 31 August 2023, the Complainant filed a Complaint Form with the WRC in which she alleged that she had not been paid the full amount that was due to her, in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant.

In a letter from the WRC dated 30 January 2025, the Complainant’s Representative was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 19 March 2025. The same letter set out the procedure regarding postponement requests.

On 5 March 2025, the Complainant’s Representative came off record for the Complainant as regards the Complainant’s related case (ADJ-00045217).

On 18 March 2025, the Complainant was emailed log-in details for the remote Hearing. The Complainant did not respond.

On 19 March 2025, the Complainant did not attend the Hearing. A grace period was allowed to enable the Complainant to attend the Hearing or contact the WRC. She did not do so.

On 23 May 2025, the WRC sent a letter to the Complainant by post and email. The letter outlined that the Complainant had not attended the Hearing. The letter further outlined that unless the WRC heard from the Complainant within seven days, a decision would be issued in this matter and the file would be closed. The Complainant did not contact the WRC.

On 4 June 2025, the WRC emailed the Complainant’s Representative seeking confirmation as to whether it was still on record for this case. The WRC noted that on 5 March 2025, the Complainant’s Representative emailed the WRC and indicated that it was coming off record as regards the Complainant’s related case (ADJ-00045217), however it had made no mention of this case. In the circumstances, the WRC sought clarification by no later than 11 June 2025. The Complainant and the Respondent were copied into the same email.

On 10 June 2025, the Complainant’s Representative emailed the WRC and confirmed that it was also no longer on record for the Complainant in this case.

The Complainant did not contact the WRC.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

On 19 December 2023, during the Case Management Conference, the Respondent’s correct name was confirmed and it is reflected in this Decision.

In a letter from the WRC dated 31 January 2025, the Respondent was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 19 March 2025. The same letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. The Respondent did not seek a postponement and did not attend the Hearing.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the Hearing and decided not to attend.

Findings and Conclusions:

I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the Hearing but did not attend. I am also satisfied that the WRC has made sufficient effort to contact the Complainant, who has not engaged.

The Complainant failed to attend the Hearing as scheduled and failed to present any evidence in support of her complaint.

In the circumstances, I find that the complaint is 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.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 23-06-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman

Key Words:

Payment of Wages Act 1991, Non-Attendance.