Background
Ade Adeyanju brought statutory employment-rights complaints and two industrial-relations disputes arising from his employment by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. The matters were referred to an adjudication officer of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
At a hearing in April 2025, the adjudication officer directed that the resumed proceedings be held in private. The WRC’s subsequent letter referred to the private investigation required for the Industrial Relations Act 1969 disputes and to factual overlap with the employment-rights complaints. Adeyanju sought judicial review. Neither the WRC nor his employer opposed the application.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Simons held that the direction must be quashed insofar as it required the complaints under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 to be heard otherwise than in public. Section 41(13) makes a public hearing the default; privacy requires identified “special circumstances” and a justified, proportionate departure from that rule.
The private character of the Industrial Relations Act disputes did not automatically displace the public-hearing requirement for the statutory complaints. The adjudication officer had not identified the nature or extent of the factual overlap, explained why the matters could not fairly or practicably be separated, or considered whether a narrower measure would suffice. The Court therefore could not be satisfied that section 41(13) had been correctly understood and applied.
The Court declined to grant a declaration about alleged requirements for attendees to provide personal information or identification. The evidence about the access arrangements was inadequate, and it would have been unfair to decide that systemic issue without giving the WRC an opportunity to address it.
Key Takeaways
- WRC proceedings under section 41 are public by default.
- Private Industrial Relations Act disputes do not, without more, justify closing related statutory complaints.
- A decision to restrict public access must give intelligible reasons and consider less intrusive measures.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces open justice in WRC adjudications following Zalewski. Where mixed proceedings involve different statutory regimes, adjudication officers must address each regime separately and tailor any privacy restriction to what is actually necessary.
The Court proposed remitting the matters to the WRC for determination by a different adjudication officer, while preserving the statutory requirement that the two Industrial Relations Act disputes be investigated in private.