TED265

TE/25/24

PARTIES:

ASHBURY NURSING HOME LTD (COMPANY B) (ACCEPTING LIABILITY UNDER TUPE) AND

ANH HEALTHCARE LTD (COMPANY A) FORMER EMPLOYER.

AND

 MARTIN HORAK

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00053590 (CA-00065393-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 6 April 2025 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012. 

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6 March 2026. 

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Martin Horak (hereafter “the Appellant”) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00053590 CA-00065393-001, dated 21 March 2025) in relation to a complaint made by him against his former employer, cited on the decision as ‘Ashbury Nursing Home Ltd (Company B) (Accepting Liability under TUPE and Anh Healthcare Ltd (Company A) former employer’ (hereafter “the Respondent”). 

The Adjudication Officer found the complaint was well founded and awarded €150.00 in compensation. The Appellant lodged an appeal of that decision to the Labour Court on 6 April 2024, in relation to the quantum of the compensation award.  

Background to the Appeal Hearing

By letter dated 24 November 2025, the Court notified the parties that the appeal would be heard on 23 January 2026.

On 26 December 2026, the Appellant emailed the Court to say that he was unable to attend the scheduled hearing for medical reasons. He requested that the matter on appeal be decided by written submissions. On foot that application, the Respondent party objected to the Court deciding the matter by written submissions only. It stated that it was agreeable to a postponement of the hearing, if so needed.

On 12 January 2026, the Court notified the Appellant of its decision, having considered his request, that the appeal would proceed by way of an oral hearing. The Appellant requested a postponement of the hearing on medical grounds and provided evidence of a medical procedure scheduled for 20 January 2026 in support of his application. The postponement request was granted.

By letter dated 19 January 2026, the parties were notified of a rescheduled hearing date set for 6 March 2026. Both parties wrote to the Court to confirm their attendance at the hearing on that date.

The Appeal Hearing on 6 March 2026

On the morning of the hearing, the Appellant emailed the Court Secretary at 08:21 to say that he was unable to attend the hearing as his ‘current medical condition’ had worsened overnight. He further stated that he ‘was currently on certified sick leave’ and had ‘recently started new prescribed medication‘. The Appellant again requested that the matter be dealt with by way of written submission or, alternatively, postponed to another date. The Court Secretary notified the Respondent of this development.

The Respondent party was in attendance at the Court at the scheduled time at 10:00am. The Chairman outlined the nature of the correspondence received from the Appellant. The Chairman noted that as the Appellant was not present to move the appeal it was open to the Court, having heard from the Respondent, to reconsider the application made to have the appeal dealt with by written submission or, in the alternative, to adjourn the appeal hearing to another date or, to decide to regard the Appellant’s non-attendance as a failure to advance his appeal.

In reply, the Respondent’s representative stated that, as previously advised to the Court, the Respondent was not agreeable to have the matter dealt with by of written submission, and that they were opposed to any application to adjourn the hearing and reschedule it to another date.

The Court adjourned for a period to consider the applications. The Court decided that it was not appropriate to deal with the appeal by way of written submission. 

The hearing reconvened. The Chairman advised the Respondent of the Court’s decision not to deal with the appeal by way of written submission. The Chairman advised that the Court had decided to adjourn to give further consideration to the late postponement application, and that it would communicate its decision in due course to both parties.

Deliberations

Application to deal with the appeal by way of written submissions

In coming to the decision to refuse the application to deal with the appeal by way of written submissions, the Court took account of the following:

Section 47(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that, where a party is notified of the Court’s intention to decide a matter by way of written submission, and a party to the appeal objects, the Labour Court shall not deal with the appeal in that manner.

The Respondent objected to a previous application by the Appellant to have the appeal dealt with by way of written submission. The Court notified the Appellant on 12 January 2026 that it had considered his request and had decided that the matter would proceed by way of on oral hearing.  At the hearing on 6 March 2026, the Respondent reiterated its objection to the appeal being dealt with by way of written submission only. 

In light of the above, the Court decided it was not appropriate to deal with the matter by way of written submission.

Application to postpone the hearing

In coming to the decision to refuse the application to postpone the rescheduled hearing, the Court took account of the following:

An initial hearing scheduled for 23 January 2026 was postponed following an application made by the Appellant to postpone the hearing on medical grounds.  The hearing was rescheduled for 6 March 2026. In advance of that date, the Appellant confirmed his attendance on the rescheduled hearing.

On 6 March 2026, the Appellant emailed the Court to say that he could not attend the hearing as his condition had worsened overnight. He also stated that he ‘was currently on certified sick leave’. While the Court does not challenge the veracity or otherwise of the Appellant’s statement about his medical status at that point in time, it appears that the circumstances that arose were foreseeable, insofar as it was open to the Appellant before the rescheduled hearing date to inform the Court that he was on sick leave, which sick leave according to the Appellant was certified, and to seek a postponement, as he did in December 2025. Instead, the Appellant confirmed his attendance in advance of the hearing on 6 March 2026. The Court took account of the fact that no medical evidence was submitted by the Appellant to support his statement that he was ‘on certified sick leave’ on the day of the hearing. No evidence or medical certification was submitted to support his statement that he was unfit or unable to attend the hearing on 6 March 2026.

The requirement for fairness and equity must apply to both parties to an appeal. In that regard, the Court took cognisance of the fact that the Respondent was present at the hearing and ready to proceed with the appeal. The Respondent had consented to the previous postponement application. It submitted that it was oppose to a further adjournment.

As stated in recent decisions, the resources of the Labour Court are scarce. A postponement of a hearing at a late juncture results in wasted costs for the parties and for the public, involving lost time for Members of the Court and the secretariat. The Court room and facilities was set aside for the day to hear the appeal. It is not possible for the Court to schedule an alternative case to replace the scheduled appeal. Furthermore, rescheduling the appeal will take up further time on the Court programme - which will delay another party having their appeal heard.

The Court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, a further delay in the hearing of the within appeal would be contrary to parties right to a fair and expeditious trial and to have their rights and obligations determined within a reasonable timeframe. The Court having considered all the above did not believe that justice would be served by postponing the hearing

 The Labour Court Rules 2024, which are made pursuant to section 20(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, state as follows: -

41. Where the Appellant does not turn up for the hearing and, no satisfactory explanation is given to the Court for the failure of the Appellant to appear, the Court may determine that the appeal has not been upheld.

In this case, the Court is of the view that the Appellant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or evidence for his non-appearance at the hearing. As the Appellant did not attend the hearing to move the appeal, the appeal fails.

Decision

The Appellant was not present to move the appeal. The appeal fails.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The complaint under the Act is well founded.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
FC	______________________
20th March 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.