The Keelings fruit and vegetable group has failed in an attempt to have allegations of whistleblower penalisation and multiple employment rights breaches by a former employee heard entirely behind closed doors.
At the Workplace Relations Commission on Wednesday an adjudicator told the firm’s representatives that the prospect of “certain people being named” in connection with the case was not reason enough to justify hearing the matter out of the public eye.
Keelings Logistics Solutions had sought a private hearing into claims by the worker, former warehouseman Rudolph Csikos, which were called on Wednesday at the employment tribunal.
He has alleged breaches of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 against the company.
Gerry Thornley: Ireland deserve top billing in Lions touring party to Australia
Pope Leo XIV: American cardinal Robert Prevost elected as new pope - as it happened
Joe Duffy to leave Liveline at the end of June after 27 years
Dave Hannigan: Why Bill Belichick’s relationship with woman 49 years younger has America rapt
At the hearing, adjudicator Brian Dalton noted the application by the company’s representative, Emily Maverley of the Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation (Ibec), for a hearing “in private”.
“That’s quite unusual, because this case is about the administration of justice,” he said. “I do have the power to have a hearing in private, but I have to have very good reasons for it,” he said.
“Certain wrongs, certain people being named – that in itself is not a reason,” he added.
“In the administration of justice, the whole process is tested, and ultimately I will make a ruling. You can’t make an allegation of defamation in the administration of justice. It’s up to me to decide,” he said. He added that the law required “exceptional” circumstances for a private hearing.
Will DoorDash takeover of Deliveroo mean better pay and conditions for gig economy workers?
Mr Dalton said he was only aware of the basis for the application for a private hearing at a “high level” and said there was “no point” discussing the detail any further with a member of the press in the room.
“I’m going to ask the press to leave temporarily,” he said.
The matter proceeded for around 25 minutes behind closed doors before Mr Dalton reopened the hearing to the public.
“An application was made for the hearing to be heard in private, and it was turned down,” he said.
After a short adjournment, Mr Dalton quoted a section of the Workplace Relations Act, as amended, to the parties.
He said the legislation required a hearing “in public, unless the adjudicating officer… determines that due to the existence of special circumstances, the proceedings or part thereof should be conducted otherwise than in public”.
“In other words, most of this case will be heard in public,” Mr Dalton said.
The adjudicator gave May 27th as the date for a further hearing and adjourned the matter shortly after that.
