ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002814
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A healthcare worker | A healthcare provider |
Representatives | Self | Judy McNamara IBEC |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00002814 | 04/07/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Date of Hearing: 12/11/2024 and 27/05/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties´ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
During the first scheduled hearing, I suggested to the worker that he take legal advice or advice from Citizens Information and that he engage with the internal procedure that had not concluded by the time the hearing on the 12 November 2024 opened.
I engaged with the parties by correspondence requesting confirmation that the internal processes had concluded.
I rescheduled the hearing for 27 May 2025 and at that hearing the Employer informed me that a further 7 grievances had been submitted by the Worker to management since the hearing in November 2024 and the internal processes had not concluded in relation to the original complaint dating back to April 2024.
After the hearing, the worker submitted a complaint to the WRC requesting a different adjudicator to rehear the case citing adjudicator bias. The Worker set out that the direction he received that he complete the internal grievance process has caused harm to his mental health, education and family stability. He is set out that he was not shared with documents referred to at the hearing.
Background:
The worker was employed since the 10 April 2023 as a social care worker. His referral to the WRC was in relation to bullying and harassment procedures and set out that during a meeting on the 25 April 2024 the person in charge of the facility made a racial comment that he perceived as discriminatory and threatening. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker submitted that his referral was on his behalf and all non-Irish staff members at that meeting. Following the meeting, he approached management to address his and his colleagues concerns. Instead of receiving support, he was threatened with a parallel enquiry and an outcome that exacerbated the hostile environment he and his colleagues were experiencing. He explained that he was very badly affected following the meeting and subsequent process and felt threatened and harassed. He disputed that he made a mistake in relation to medication. He stated that he didn’t trust the employer. At the hearing on the 27 May 2025, the worker confirmed that he didn’t want to move to Stage 2 of the Grievance procedure. He said he didn’t want to proceed with the internal process. He submitted that the Employer had predetermined the outcome of his internal grievance. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer set out that the worker failed to particularise his claims or substantiate his allegation by reference to witnesses, dates are further details. The Employer arranged a grievance meeting with the worker in accordance with the grievance policy. The Employer submitted that a thorough, careful and complete investigation was undertaken. A grievance outcome was delivered to the worker of the 3 July 2024 followed by a detailed letter on the 4 July 2024. The findings were that the grievances could not be upheld due to insufficient evidence to support the worker's allegations. The investigators findings were that not all of the worker’s statements were fully factual and some information provided by him was false and misleading. These statements were based on assumptions made by the worker. The Employer in its submissions set out the precedents whereby it was well established that disputes under the Industrial Relations Act should be exhausted at local level before a dispute under the Act should be raised with the WRC. The Employers position is that the internal process had not been exhausted. They set out that it was very hard to keep up with the level of the worker’s complaints. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Employer has an agreed dispute resolution grievance procedure in place. This procedure is in accordance with SI 146/2000.
The worker is aware of the provisions of the grievance procedure.
My role in an Industrial Relations referral only commences when the internal procedures have been exhausted. I explained this to the worker at the hearing on the 12 November 2024 and again on the 27 May 2025.
I explained to the worker that this is standard operational procedure both in the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court.
The worker doesn't accept this.
For many reasons, complaints under the Industrial Relations Act cannot be entertained when workplace level procedures have not been fully exhausted. The role of the WRC is to support and encourage the resolution of disputes at the earliest and most effective level possible in line with good industrial relations practice. A point may be reached where the services of the WRC will be of assistance to parties but only when all efforts to resolve a matter at local level have been fully exhausted and have failed. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I make no recommendation in favour of the worker.
The worker needs to complete the internal grievance procedure with the employer before he can lodge a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission.
Dated: 02nd of December 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Exhaustion of local remedies in an Industrial Relations case required |