An Irish Prison Service officer has won compensation in a dispute over his roster after bosses at the State agency failed to show up for a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing last month. Norman Mullen was awarded three weeks’ wages in compensation on foot of a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, in a decision just published by the tribunal. Mullen, the tribunal heard, had taken up a new post in 2021 as a work training officer in the service, but decided to return to his old position during a “cooling-off period”. Before he took the training officer post, he had been rostered on a “no nights” basis, an arrangement available to prison officers, but subject to a waiting list, the WRC heard. He told an adjudication hearing on May 27th this year that when he gave up the training officer job, he was put on a roster which included night duties. Mullen said he had “assurances” from an assistant chief officer and his union rep that he would be put “back at the top of a waiting list” for the “no nights” status. Mullen said he learned in September 2025 that more “no nights” jobs had become available because of increased staffing – but after making inquiries, discovered that “no list existed” with his name on it. He said he met with the governor overseeing human resources on September 7th last year. Mullen said it was accepted at this meeting that he should not have been taken off the no-nights roster in the first place.A new roster was put in place with no night duty, but then it was rescinded a week later, Mullen said. He said this was on foot of another prison officer complaining. The HR governor had again acknowledged Mullen should not have been removed from the no-nights roster, the complainant said. He had heard nothing further since, he added. Adjudicator Úna Glazier-Farmer noted that there was “no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent” when she heard Mullen’s complaint three weeks ago. “As the respondent had been given every opportunity to attend and had been properly notified, the hearing proceeded in their absence,” Glazier-Farmer wrote. Mullen’s evidence “was undisputed, and I accept it in full”, she wrote. She wrote that she was satisfied that it had been acknowledged to Mullen that he should not have lost the no-nights arrangement and was entitled to priority to go back to that if one became available. The removal of the roster was a clear change to Mullen’s employment terms made without either his agreement or written notice, in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. She ordered the Irish Prison Service to “ensure compliance” with the Act by giving Mullen notice of contract changes. Setting compensation, Glazier-Farmer wrote that she was taking into account the nature of the breach, the impact on Mullen’s working life, and “the respondent’s failure to engage with the process”.