ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003311

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	Bus Driver	Transport Operator

Representatives

Work colleague

Michael McGrath 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 - 00003311	21/10/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	IR - SC - 00003312	21/10/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	IR - SC - 00003564	16/12/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	IR - SC - 00003565	16/12/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Date of Hearing: 19/11/2025

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).

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. The parties 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and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.

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

The Worker’s disputes were received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 16/12/2024. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 18/12/2024 and notified of their right under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer within 21 days. The Employer was informed that failure to reply within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute proceeded to hearing.

I am satisfied that no objection to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer was received by the Workplace Relations Commission from the Employer.

The Worker attended the hearing and was accompanied by a colleague. The Employer was represented by Ibec and one other representative from the Employer.

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 also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific 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 the issues giving rise to this dispute.

Background:

The Worker is employed as a bus driver since July 2023. He submitted a number of complaint forms to the WRC in relation to four alleged disputes with the Employer. The Employer believes that they acted reasonably at all times in relation to dealing with the Worker’s multitude of grievances.

Summary of Workers Case:

(1) The Worker refers to a Labour Court Agreement from July 2022 between the Employer and the trade unions in relation to scheduling matters. The Worker believes that a new schedule introduced by the Employer is in breach of the rules and guidelines in this agreement.

(2) The Worker was involved in a dispute with an inspector/supervisor. He remains unhappy with the manner in which this was dealt with and believes that he was verbally abused and defamed during the course of various meetings.

(3) The Worker has a dispute in relation to a particular route (Route X). This relates to the allocated travel time of 45 minutes from one depot to another. This travel time is paid as overtime and therefore the Worker believes that he has no choice in relation to working overtime. On the return to the original depot, he is not paid.

(4) The Worker had been disciplined by the Employer in relation to the use of an onboard control mechanism. The Worker notes that the Employer has a “Zero Tolerance” in relation to the use of this mechanism. This mechanism is designed to ensure that the bus reaches each stop on time and if a driver is ahead of time he has to stop or drive slowly to ensure that the journey is synchronised. The mechanism has faulty software and the Worker believes that there is a health and safety issue.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

It is the Employer’s position that they have acted reasonably and progressing the many grievances raised by the Worker. He has failed to exhaust the internal procedures in relation to a number of these and therefore he cannot avail of the WRC. It is the Employer’s view that the role of an Adjudication Officer in cases like this is not to make specific findings but within the context of an industrial relation dispute is to assess compliance with SI 146/2000, the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

The Employer acted fairly and reasonably at all times and the disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with the Employer’s procedures and the Code of Practice. The Worker was disciplined due to multiple breaches and these were detailed in the outcome letter. The disciplinary process was fair and reasonable and an appeal was afforded but the Worker submitted his dispute to the WRC before the appeal process took place. This claim must fail on the basis of failing to exhaust internal procedures.

It is also the Employer’s position that these disputes are without merit and should be dismissed in their entirety.

Conclusions:

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

The role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations disputes such as these is to formulate a recommendation that will assist both parties to move forward. In this case that is not possible for the following reasons:

(a) The Worker confirmed at the hearing that he did not utilise the internal procedures in all these disputes as he had no faith in the Employer’s process. This is a fundamental flaw in the Workers case and in such circumstances a Worker cannot use or substitute the WRC instead of the agreed process. The Worker is under an obligation to exhaust such procedures before submitting a dispute to the WRC.

(b) The Worker has a dispute in relation to a Labour Court agreement from 2022. Any issues in relation to that agreement are a matter for the parties to that agreement. The Worker in this case is not supported by the trade unions who are party to that agreement and in that context, this can only be seen as a dissenting voice.

(c) The other issues in dispute are either the subject of a collective agreement and ongoing collective bargaining process and therefore it would not be appropriate for the WRC to issue a recommendation which could have the potential to frustrate and erode the established and recognised process in place.

Recommendation:

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

IR-SC – 00003311: I do not make any recommendation in favour of the Worker.

Dated: 17th of December 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Internal procedures. Collective agreement.