WRC Postponement and Adjournment Applications

Introduction 

On occasion, the parties on either side of the dispute may seek a postponement of the adjudication hearing, or an adjournment, for a variety of different reasons.

Postponements are requested prior to the scheduled hearing date. A request submitted on the day of the hearing is known as an "application for adjournment." 

A request for adjournment must satisfy the "exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons" standard, and the petitioner must also explain why a request for delay was not filed in advance.

In some instances, a request for a postponement may be made with consent. Applications received by the WRC within five business days of the hearing notice letter and supported by the written approval of the opposing party are granted automatically.

When applications for a postponement are made to the WRC without the approval of the other party, the reasons for the application and any pertinent supporting material must be provided at the time of the application. These may include medical certificates, a death notification, proof of flight reservations, jury service papers, etc.

Case Law

In the recent case of Stephen Walsh -v- Pat the Baker (ADJ00037569), the complainant wrote to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) seeking an adjournment the day before the hearing but was informed that he had to seek an adjournment directly from the Adjudication Officer.

The complainant did not attend the hearing but sent an email on the morning of the hearing indicating that he would not be in attendance for a number of reasons. Firstly, he set out that he wished to respond in writing to the respondent’s submission which he claimed he only received two days before the hearing. Secondly, he was acting under the impression that the respondent was not going to attend, therefore, he cancelled is annual leave and would be working on the day in question. Thirdly, as he had only recently become aware that the respondent would have representation, he too wanted an opportunity to seek representation.

The respondent, as well as three witnesses, attended the hearing.

The Adjudication Officer afforded the complainant a customary 15 minute grace period to attend the hearing. When the complainant failed to arrive, the Adjudication Officer commenced the hearing, noting that the complainant had received copies of the respondent’s submission 10 months prior to the hearing and that his reference to receiving the documentation two days prior to the adjudication hearing, constituted a re-issue of the same documents. The Adjudication Officer further noted that the complainant was specifically advised by the staff of the WRC to present himself at the hearing to seek an adjournment. Finally, the Adjudication Officer noted that the complainant had known, for close to a year, that the respondent had representation.

As the complainant did not attend the hearing of these matters, the Adjudication Officer could not find in his favour in relation to any of the complaints he had put forward. Therefore, his complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, failed.

In the case of Ruth Callan -v- General Paints Limited (ADJ00031862), the complainant, at short notice, applied for the hearing to be postponed arising from both the client and counsel instructed to present the case being unable to attend the hearing. The complainant’s solicitor was advised to make an application at the scheduled hearing for a postponement or adjournment. The complainant was requested to submit relevant medical certificates and forward their written submissions in advance of the adjudication hearing to allow the WRC to make a determination as to whether there were sufficient grounds for an adjournment. In the absence of any evidence to ground the application for an adjournment based on an exceptional reason, the Adjudication Officer refused the application for an adjournment for lack of evidence to ground such a request.

The respondent was ready to present their case and to rebut the allegations made by the complainant. The complainant did not attend the hearing. As no evidence had been provided to explain the absence of the complainant, the Adjudication Officer found that the complainant had failed to make out her case and decided that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed and the complaints made under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, were not well founded.

In the case of Ciaran Kelly -v- Securitas Security Services (Ireland) Limited (ADJ00033405), the respondent sought a postponement on the second day of the hearing of this case. Counsel for the complainant noted that they were not on notice of this request. IBEC, who were representing the respondent, informed the Adjudication Officer that the intended IBEC representative, for the second day, who had commenced the first hearing, was unavailable due to his being scheduled to attend a Labour Court hearing. As an application had not been made affording the parties sufficient time to consider such a request, the Adjudication Officer declined the request and proceeded with the hearing.

In A Complainant -v- A Named Counsel Official (ADJ00010570), there was no attendance on the day of the hearing by or on behalf of the complainant or their representatives. It subsequently emerged that the solicitor for the complainant, Ms Rosen, had, on the day before the intended adjudication hearing, contacted the WRC’s Postponement Unit and was advised that a request for a postponement was being refused. Ms Rosen was advised that any appeals must be made in person as per the WRC guidelines which, in this case, will be at the hearing date due to the late application. Ms Rosen had made an application for a postponement as she was scheduled to attend another matter at Ennis District Court on the same date of the scheduled adjudication hearing. The Adjudication Officer noted that, in arriving at her decision to progress with the hearing and making a determination, she had taken into consideration that the WRC has a clear procedure for postponements. It says the postponements will only be granted in exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons. Any application must also be accompanied by relevant supporting documentation within the requisite time frame.

Furthermore, the Adjudication Officer noted that the WRC procedures apply to all parties when a request for a postponement is made. The procedure is clearly laid out in the hearing notification letters and would have been well known to the pertinent legal representatives.

In Applicant -v- Government Minister (ADJ00035991), on the morning of the hearing, the complainant sent an email for the attention of the Adjudication Officer, the respondent and the Director General of the WRC. He noted that he would be unable to attend the scheduled adjudication hearing. Notwithstanding the fact that no medical certification was provided to support the request for an adjournment, as would be required under the typical postponement procedures followed by the WRC, together with the lateness of the request, following consultation with the Director of Services of the WRC, the adjournment request was granted in the circumstances.

In Alice Robinson -v- Drogheda Youth Development (ADJ00035820), the complainant, less than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, emailed the WRC stating that she was unable to attend due to work commitments. On foot of the same email, she requested that the adjudication hearing be rescheduled to a later date. At this point, the complainant was provided with documentation regarding a formal request for a postponement, nevertheless, no such request was forthcoming. In circumstances whereby the request to postpone was received so close to the scheduled hearing and that the same was granted on somewhat abstract terms, the request was denied and the matter proceeded in the absence of the complainant.

Conclusion

In conclusion, consent is typically required to request a postponement. Applications submitted to the WRC within five business days following the hearing notice letter and accompanied by the written consent of the opposing party are automatically approved.

When applications for a postponement are made to the WRC without the consent of the other party, the reasons for the application and any relevant supporting materials must be provided at the time of application.

Any party may request an adjournment if the hearing proceeds. To be granted, the request must meet the "exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons" criteria, and the applicant must also provide an explanation for why a request for delay was not submitted in advance.