ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003428

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	*A Worker*	*An Employer*

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr Lorcan Maule Solicitor Mason Hayes & Curran LLP

Dispute:

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	IR - SC - 00003428	16/11/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Date of Hearing: 10/03/2025

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.

As this is a trade dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private and the parties are not named. They are referred to as “the Worker” and “the

Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.

The Worker attended the hearing and represented herself. The Worker was accompanied by her husband. The School Principal and the Deputy School Principal attended on behalf of the Employer. The Employer was represented by Mr Lorcan Maule Solicitor of Mason Hayes & Curran LLP accompanied by Ms Isabelle Tierney Trainee Solicitor.

I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this referral. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing in order to gain an understanding of the full extent of this dispute.

Where applicable this investigation may involve an assessment of whether processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. 146 of 2000.

I have confirmed that the Worker herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the dispute as set out in section 13. It is noted section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendation/s I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the position of the parties thereto. Any consideration of the merits of the dispute will include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have utilised before referring the dispute to the WRC.

No issues were raised as to my jurisdiction to hear this dispute as referred.

I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this dispute.

At the end of hearing both parties confirmed they were satisfied they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all relevant information. The Worker expressed her disappointment that I did not have sight of her submissions in advance of hearing. To date said submissions have not been filed with the WRC. Notwithstanding, the documents relied upon by the Worker at hearing had for the most part been exhibited in the Employer’s appendices and I am satisfied there was no prejudice to the Worker.

Background:

This matter came before the WRC dated 16/11/2024 as a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The specific complaint falls under a trade dispute that the Worker would like investigated. The Worker claims she is being asked to do an unfair level of work in the time allowed.

The aforesaid dispute was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 10/03/2025.

The background to this dispute relates to a disciplinary hearing and the imposition of a sanction.

The Worker is employed as a part-time cleaner at all material times. The Worker works 12.5 hours per week for which she is paid €317.50 gross per fortnight.

The Respondent is a school.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The Worker submits that during the summer in 2024 she noticed that three extra rooms were built and she submits she does not have the time to do the extra work. The Worker submits her hours in September 2020 had been 3 hours this has now been reduced to 2.5. The Worker on inquiry clarifies that the three rooms that were built had previously been a storage area which had been converted into two resource classrooms and a room to facilitate the housing of industrial ovens for the hot school lunches.

The Worker submits she simply had no time day to day to clean these rooms (15A,15B and 15C). The Worker phoned the school and she wrote to the school on 31st July 2024 to tell them that she cannot do any extra cleaning work in her allotted time of 2.5 hours and she simply does not have the time to clean the three additional rooms she is now expected to clean.

The Worker advised in the aforesaid letter that she would clean these extra rooms if she could work an extra 30 minutes per day considering she was originally working 3 hours per day. The Worker submits the Respondent replied to acknowledge receipt of her letter and the correspondence from the Respondent set out that the three rooms to which the Worker was referring are in the former cloak room area which has always been part of the Worker’s duties and was not an addition to her list of duties to be completed between 2pm and 4.30pm each day. The Worker responded enclosing a copy of what the Worker referred to as her contract. The Worker submits there was further correspondence up until she received a letter on 4th September advising of disciplinary procedure. The Worker submits this was delayed so that she could get legal advice and rescheduled to the 19th September and postponed again to 24th September. The Worker submits she had a letter from her solicitor which she handed over at the meeting on 24th September.

The Worker submits she received a copy of the minutes of the meeting and she disputed them.

The Worker submits that on the advice of her barrister she started recording her tasks and the amount of time it took to complete them and on the advice of her barrister she conducted this trial for two weeks. The Worker submits this demonstrated that she does not have the time to clean every single area in her check list in 150 minutes with 13 out of the 14 tasks being completed.

After this trial the Worker submits she reverted back to not cleaning the 3 rooms at issue and she is now at stage 2 of the Disciplinary Procedure since November.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer submits that upon commencement of the Worker starting her role, she was provided with a list of duties and a map of the area she was responsible for. The cleaning duties that the Worker started her employment with have changed since 2020. This was as a result of covid-19, as the School required additional measures of cleaning in place, including the cleaning and sanitizing hard toys and class materials on a daily basis. The Employer submits this no longer occurs. The Worker no longer cleans and sanitizes the hard toys and classroom materials in each classroom. The Worker also no longer cleans the back stairs and lobby, as this was allocated to another cleaner in the school.

The Worker is supposed to carry out the following duties in line with her contract of employment: Rooms: 9, Junior library, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, toilets and staff toilets, middle stairs and lobby and the corridor from the middle stairs to the toilets.

The Worker was shown the areas that she was responsible for by the then Acting Principal upon commencement of her employment in 2020 and given a map of the areas. The central issue to this dispute is the fact that the Worker refuses to clean rooms 15A, 15B and 15C. The Worker has been issued with a verbal and written warning for failing to comply with legitimate instructions from her employer.

The Complainant had previously cleaned the area where the rooms 15a, 15b and 15c are located, as this used to be a cloakroom. This area was converted into these rooms, however the amount of floor space the cleaner cleans remains the same.

A series of correspondence was exchanged between the parties. However, the parties were not able to agree on the matter, but the Worker was warned on 28 August 2024 that failure to carry out the duties in line with her contract of employment could lead to disciplinary procedures.

On 4 September 2024, the Respondent initiated disciplinary procedures against the cleaner at stage 1 of the process which is a verbal warning. The Worker wrote to the school on 6 September 2024 that she had received advice from an employment expert in Citizens Advice and been instructed to contact the WRC.

On 10 September 2024, the School Principal hand delivered a letter to the Worker stating that failure to engage with the disciplinary procedure could lead to further disciplinary action against the Worker. The disciplinary procedure was paused as the Worker informed the Respondent that she would be receiving independent legal advice from a solicitor.

The Employer paused the procedure to allow the Worker to receive the advice. The School principal having re-arranged the disciplinary meeting for the third time, the Worker agreed to attend the meeting having received legal advice.

On 25 September 2024, there was a dispute regarding the minutes and an altercation between the Worker and the School Principal. The Complainant referenced receiving advice from her employment barrister and solicitor.

The Worker appealed her verbal warning which was heard by the Chairperson of the Board of Management and the sanction was upheld. The Complainant on the advice of her solicitor and barrister began documenting her times to clean the various area and this continued for two weeks.

Between 8 October 2024 to 18 October 2024, the Worker was cleaning 13 out of the 14 rooms. From 21 October 2024 the Worker again failed to clean rooms 15a, 15b and 15c. The Worker was invited to attend a disciplinary meeting at stage 2 of the disciplinary procedures on 14 November 2024.

The purpose of the meeting was to consider the Complainant’s failure to carry out reasonable instructions in cleaning the rooms. The Worker was issued with a written warning on 15/11/2024. The Worker filed an industrial relations claim with the WRC on 16/11/2024.

At hearing the Employer submits the Worker undertakes less duties that the other cleaning staff and refers to a breakdown of the duties and she in fact cleans the least to which the Worker submits it is not fair to compare as she cleans up after the youngest and the messiest.

Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Having listened to both parties in this dispute it quickly became apparent that even though there was at the very least a gap of mutual understanding on certain matters, there was a commendable level of willingness to engage on both sides. Attention was drawn to the relatively informal voluntary nature of the process and to my role in attempting to resolve a dispute and recommend a way forward that is fair and reasonable to both parties and to facilitate the parties in reaching a way forward particularly in circumstances where the employment relationship continues.

It was explained to the Worker that it is not my role to determine what tasks she should be undertaking in the time allocated or whether or not she was being asked to undertake an unfair level of work. I explained my role as that of evaluating and establishing if the internal procedures used by the Employer conformed to the generally accepted standards of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in such cases and assess whether processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. 146 of 2000. I am satisfied the Disciplinary Procedures are in compliance with same. I am satisfied the Worker was treated fairly by the Employer in the application of the Disciplinary procedure and in the reasons for which the procedure was invoked when I take all the circumstances leading up to this dispute into account. I note the Employer facilitated the Worker by rescheduling meetings with the Worker not once but twice while the Worker sought the advice of her legal team.

Notwithstanding, the purpose of the hearing is to find a way forward for both parties which is fair and reasonable in order to maintain the employment relationship into the future and to this end I note the Worker likes her job and wishes to continue to work for the Employer.

The Employer at hearing put forward the following proposals by way of solutions to resolve this dispute. The Employer offered to the Worker that she could move to a different area within the school as there are 4 cleaning posts a breakdown of which was provided. The Worker immediately responded to this proposal by stating she would not change her hours. It would appear the Worker commences at 1.30pm albeit I note the document she refers to as her contract provides a start time of 2pm.

The second proposal put forward by the Employer was that the Worker continue to undertake the 13 out of 14 tasks that she herself had proved could be accomplished after she conducted her own time and motion study of recording the time it took her to undertake her tasks, on the advice of her barrister, ensuring the cleaning of the toilets remain a priority by remaining one of the 13 undertaken daily.

Taking into consideration all the circumstances set out above I recommend hereunder.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend the Worker should engage with her Employer, if she has not already done so, and to indicate to the Employer which of the proposals put forward she is willing to accept for the purposes of maintaining this relationship into the future.

Dated: 03rd of April 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Key Words:

Unfair level of work; refusal to undertake work; disciplinary procedure;