ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00066107
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Cinthia Mendes Da Silva | Gotham Cafe Limited |
Representatives | No Appearance | David Barry |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 | CA-00080375-001 | 04/02/2026 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This matter was heard by way of a remote hearing on the 10 June 2026 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I received and reviewed documentation from the parties prior to the hearing.
At the time the hearing was to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I verified that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing and waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. The Complainant was contacted by the WRC by telephone however there was no answer. The Complainant did not attend and I opened the hearing. The Respondent was in attendance and was represented by David Barry, Owner and CEO. Ash Thulseepersad, Executive Chef and Joint General Manager was also in attendance to give evidence on behalf of the Respondent.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing and did not give evidence in support of her complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted a written response to the complaint, attended the hearing and was prepared to present evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In making these findings, I have considered the submissions made at the hearing as well as the documentation submitted by the parties in advance of the hearing. At the time the hearing was to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I verified that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing and waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. The Complainant was contacted by the WRC by telephone however there was no answer. The Complainant did not attend the hearing to advance that a contravention of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time) Work Act 2001 had taken place. The Respondent submitted written submissions in advance of the hearing which contained a full defence to the Complainant’s complaint. Taking into consideration the foregoing 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 decide that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 15th June 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Key Words:
|