ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055528
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Helena Brady | Home For Life Limited |
Representatives |
| N/A |
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-00065340-001 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065340-002 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065340-003 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 | CA-00065340-004 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00065340-005 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00065340-008 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00065340-010 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00065340-011 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00065340-012 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00065340-014 | 07/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13 March 2025 and 12 May 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complains and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The hearing was scheduled remotely for 13 March 2025. The Complainant was unable to access the hearing on the day due to technical issues. The Complainant was in attendance on the second day of the hearing, which was held in person.
The Respondent did not attend on either day.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Case Manager/Legal Executive with the Respondent. Her employment began on 6 June 2023 and ended on 13 February 2024. She alleged that the Respondent unfairly dismissed and discriminated against her and also stated that they breached the Regulations surrounding the Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant claimed that the Respondent unfairly dismissed and discriminated against her, and also asserted that they breached the Regulations concerning the Protection of Employees on Transfers of Undertakings. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing to give evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the process of my investigation of these complaints, the Complainant repeatedly refused to answer direct questions that I asked her and continually interrupted me. She also alleged that I worked “for the government and that it was in the interests of everybody that I made this case go away”. She further accused me of being in cahoots with the Minister and alleged that I was “probably meeting the Minister for a drink” after the hearing. Considering the foregoing, I found that the Complainant’s behaviour prevented the hearing from proceeding and made it impossible to continue. Turning to legal precedent having regard to the Complainant’s conduct, Noonan J stated as follows in Ammi Burke v. An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission (Respondents) and Arthur Cox LLP (Notice Party) [2024] IECA 105 wherein: “[t]he right of access to the court is not absolute and brings with it certain obligations. Parties who are not prepared to assume those obligations may find themselves forfeiting that right of access… The integrity of the court process requires the court to guard and relieve against abuse where it occurs. The court’s inherent jurisdiction entitles it to protect against abuse by making such order as the justice of the case requires. That includes, in rare and exceptional instances, a power to strike out and/or dismiss a claim - see for example Tracey v Burton [2016] IESC 16 and W.L. Construction Limited v Chawke [2016] IEHC 539… … A judge must be afforded a wide margin of discretion to control his or her own court in the face of abusive conduct… I cannot see how it can be said that the court had somehow a continuing obligation to determine the litigation on the merits in circumstances where the party bringing that litigation was actively pursuing the objective of preventing a fair hearing from taking place.” I also noted that Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger cited above held as follows at para 30: Abuse of Process Rights can be exercised in a way that becomes an abuse of process. In Crowley v. Ireland [1980] 1 I.R. 102 O’Higgins C.J. said at 125: “Rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be exercised having regard to the rights of others. It is on this basis that such rights are given by the Constitution. Once it is sought to exercise such rights without regard to the rights of others and without regard to the harm done to others then what is taking place is an abuse and not the exercise of a right given by the Constitution. The abuse of such rights ranks equally with the infringement of the rights of others and should be condemned by the courts in protection of the Constitution.” Having applied the principles set out above in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, and given that the Complainant’s behaviour prevented me from continuing with the hearing, I find that the complaints are not well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
CA-00065340-001: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00065340-002: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00065340-003: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00065340-004: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00065340-005: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00065340-008: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00065340-010: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00065340-011: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00065340-012: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00065340-014: I find that the complaint is not well-founded for the reasons set out above. |
Dated: 18th June 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|