ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004885
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Worker | Employer |
Representatives |
| Peter Dunlea IBEC |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | IR - SC - 00004885 | 14/06/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Date of Hearing: 28/05/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, the said Director General will then refer such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence/testimony of the parties and their witnesses and will also take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
A Trade Dispute in this context will include any dispute between an employer and a worker which is connected with the employment or the non-employment, or with the terms and conditions relating to and/or affecting the employment of any person.
I have confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the said trade dispute as described in Section 13. It is noted that 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 recommendations, I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto. I note that any consideration on 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 been utilised before bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969. Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side. It is noted that the Complainant initiated the within matter by way of workplace relations complaint form dated the 14th of June 2022. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Complainant represented himself at the first day of hearing. The Complainant alleged that he was unfairly dismissed in circumstances where he had less than twelve months service. The Complainant did not attend the second day set aside for this case. I am satisfied that the complainant was put on notice of the hearing day by letter emailed to the Complainant on the 2nd of April 2025. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Respondent was represented by IBEC and a number of witnesses presented to give evidence on the first day. The IBEC representative attended alone on the second day. |
Conclusions:
It is noted that in the aftermath of the hearing held on the 24th of May 2023 an email was sent to both parties by the Adjudicator which read as follows:-
Good afternoon Gentlemen. I refer to the hearing of the above entitled Adjudication File which was listed today in the WRC. I understand that, since filing his complaint, the Complainant successfully appealed the decision to terminate his employment and had returned to the workplace six weeks after the purported dismissal. The Complainant says he is at no financial /remunerative loss arising out of the sort period of time when he was out of work. He was I understand back-paid by the Respondent for that period of time. There is only one outstanding issue. That relates to the Holiday Pay which would have accrued to the Complainant following the decision to terminated. I understand a sum of money was paid when the Contract of Employment was thought to be terminating but that the Complainant believes the sum paid was less than what he was entitled to. Holiday pay should, I understand, be paid at a basic rate with an enhanced payment over and above depending on the level of commission earned in the 8-week period immediately prior to calculation. The Complainant was not in a position to tell me what the shortfall was. In the circumstances Ms. C S the Regional HR Manager has agreed to look at the records (going back six months from June 2022- (the date the complaint was lodged) and calculate any shortfall that might stilll be payable. I am hoping that Ms. Smith will, within two weeks of this date be able to advise the Complainant directly what is owing (if anything) and how any calculation was reached. If the Complainant is satisfied with the outcome of that process (and any payment which is due to paid has been paid) I would ask that he contact me and the case Officer (email address above) to confirm that the case is withdrawn. If the Complainant is not satisfied he should confirm this is the case and I will re-engage with the parties. I would be grateful to have confirmation either way on or before the 14th of June next.
I confirm that (after the May 2023 hearing date) the Complainant never came back to the WRC confirming what the position was, and it is in these circumstances that this matter was re-listed for the 28th of May 2025.
I can additionally confirm that the Complainant did not seek any recommendation under the Industrial Relations legislation. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
By reason of the foregoing chronology of events I make no recommendation herein.
Dated: 07th of August 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|