Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An electrician

An electrical contracting company

Representatives

Self-represented

No appearance

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 - 00004168

22/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004167

22/04/2025

The hearing was held on 11/9/25. The Worker was given an opportunity to submit a payslip and an employment contract before 19/9/25, after which the case was reserved.

The Worker was an employee working for the Employer.

He is an electrician who was employed by an electrical contracting company, which then assigned him to work on site for client companies on various projects.

The Worker was the subject of an allegation of smoking on the client company site, which he denied. The matter was investigated by his Employer over the course of four (4) weeks, but he was not paid during that time. He was not allowed to return to that client company site during the time of the investigation nor was he offered alternative work in the meantime. He was cleared of the allegation, told ‘there was no evidence’ and that ‘everything was finished.’ Once the investigation was closed, he was given the option of returning to that client company site but instead opted to take work on a different client company (new) site. He is seeking to be ‘refunded for my losses’ during the four (4) week period.

The Employer did not attend the hearing.

The Worker outlined that he was an electrician sent as a subcontractor to work on a client company’s site. When he got there, he learned that no one was allowed to use the lift with the exception of people who had some health issues, and that the client company wanted proof.

He said that employees from the contracting company that he was working for were not allowed, only the client company’s own employees could use that lift.

The Worker outlined that he has a knee injury. He said that he originally suffered the injury in January 2024 and had an operation in May 2024 and then a second operation in October 2024, because he did not recover properly from the first operation.

He outlined that his employer held a safety meeting they held every week with a Safety Officer. The Safety Officer encouraged him to bring the documentation to use the lift. However, the Worker said he did not want to make a fuss at that point, that he would be all right. He said the Safety Officer encouraged him to exercise his right, and give them the documentation (if they ask for it).

He said that on 29/08/2024, he was in the lift along with a colleague, about to lift off. Then, two other people from the client company stopped the lift (one younger, one older (H)). He said the older man, H, started to argue really loudly. He was saying: ‘Do you have the permission to ride the lift?’ The Worker said that he explained that, yes, he had the permission, that he had given all the documentation to the Safety Officer. He said he was trying to explain that he had an operation, and was waiting for another operation, and had permission to use the lift. He said H was obviously angry, that he had an angry face, that he asked what the reason was for the Worker’s colleague to use the lift. The Worker realised that it is escalating and wanted to calm things down but said his colleague is a 65 year old man. The Worker said he did not know his colleague’s condition but wanted to stand up for him as he is at a certain age. The Worker said H said that he was about the same age himself and he is using the stairs. The Worker said H was mocking his English, and becoming increasingly angrier. There was some back and forth between the parties. The Worker said he explained about his injury (which is a personal matter) and rode the lift for two floors. He said that when he was exiting, H said to him: ‘If you are in pain, you should be in a hospital and not working on site.’

Later the same day, they had a ‘Toolbox Talk’ (a weekly meeting) – there were forty of them at that talk. Then, he noticed H looking for something/someone and he thinks that he was looking for him among the people that were there. He said that H came to him really close to his face, really angry and said: ‘You wanted to know who I am, now you will.’ He went to the safety officer and said: ‘This guy was cheeky, now you’ll have to deal with it.’ The Worker said that he spoke to the Safety Officer to say that there was a problem, that it is not all right for someone to call him ‘cheeky’. He said that in all his working life, he had never encountered such a situation. He said he wanted to write a report, not to file a complaint, but to write a report so there is a trace with other people. He thinks that that was a threat to him, and he wanted to write a report so that it does not happen in the future.

He wrote an email to his Safety Officer, and then it went to the client company. He said that he was advised to send the email first to his Safety Officer, that that was the procedure that he had to follow. The Adjudication Officer enquired at the hearing whether anything else happen between the event and being dismissed. The Worker said that after he filed a report, he spoke to the manager at his Employer and that they told him that H would be contacted to read the report to him and to hear his side of the story. The following day, the Worker was called into the office again and told by his manager that H was denying the situation. He said it was put to him that if H is denying the situation, that means that the Worker is lying; and that H was asked whether they want them to investigate or to let it go. H said he wanted to let it go. The Worker was asked if he wanted to continue with the investigation, if he wants to go further? The Worker said ‘No’, that he wrote the report, he filed it, then in the future, there is a written trace. He had no further issues with H but said that other people from the client company would come towards him.

The dynamics of the working environment were pressurised

The Worker outlined the dynamic of working on site in a client company, and the ways in which that could create conflict. He outlined a number of instances where he was the subject of questions or comments either from employees of the client company or employees of other contractors/subcontractors where he was complying with the requirements placed upon him by his own supervisor. He gave examples of doing electrical work and having to secure the area and/or having to partially impede the access/egress in order to do the work safely. He explained that his company’s policy was  if anyone queried the approach being taken, he was required to go to his supervisor, to stop the work in the interim until confirmation was received from his supervisor, and then to resume the work. He explained that in some circumstances, it is also necessary to stop work if people are passing by.

He gave a number of specific examples where he had put up barriers or had partially blocked a door, and then was subject to query or criticism on the ground or told he could not do that, but he was doing so on the instruction of his supervisor who confirmed he had a ‘permit’ to do it. When he called his supervisor to confirm,  as per the policy, he was told he could continue. He outlined how this led to a pressurised environment. He gave another example involving placing barriers closing the stairs on each floor – a request which came from the client company (via his supervisor) – and another subcontractor taking the barriers/tapes off and walking there. Then, when people from the client company spotted that, they followed suit, also walking through the stairwells which had been blocked. The client company then conducted spot checks and queried why the stairs had not been blocked or why the barriers had been moved. The Worker explained that it is not within their power to actually stop anyone - that is why they have signage everywhere but if people ignore them, there is nothing they can do. He said that there was a lot of pressure from all sides for the four week period that was ongoing.

He also outlined an incident when another subcontractor tried to pass on the stairs when they were blocked off for safety reasons and then threatened to fight the Worker outside. That person subsequently apologised, explaining he had been in a rush at the time.

He outlined one safety incident where he was put under pressure to take a short-cut. He explained the dynamics of the situation and said that when he called his supervisor, the supervisor seemed to be afraid of the people in the client company and of having to notify them that certain things would have to be shut down in order to perform this particular task. That put the Worker in an invidious position – he expressed feeling helpless. He said that he was very experienced and did the task very carefully, out of respect for his supervisor because he saw that he was in a panic. But, he explained that he felt very exposed because if there were an accident it would be ‘on him’ as he is the electrician and knows the safety requirements, as does his supervisor. However, he expressed the view that if he refused to do it, he could be blacklisted. He said ‘if something happens, nobody is going to cover me’ and expressed the view that he found himself ‘in the middle’ having ‘to make everyone happy.’

The Worker said that he really loves his job and loves to leave a positive impact for people afterwards. He said that he de-escalated all the situations that he can. He said that whenever he whenever he talked to the safety officer in the company, then safety officer was supposed to talk to the client company, but the Worker does not know the details of that, and was not even sure if it was ongoing. He expressed the view that he thought the company he worked for was afraid of losing the contract.

The Worker outlined that those four weeks were really hard for him. He believes that it might be connected to the previous incident with H – that the manner in which people were interacting with him may have been an attempt to provoke a reaction from him, on foot of the previous incident.

Allegation of smoking, denied by the Worker – final event

He said that on March 26th, 2025, there was nice weather and he took his break. He said he was on Youtube, or on Whatsapp talking with his wife. He said he smokes but he did not smoke in the car, because he knew they did not want anyone smoking, even though this was located far from the site.

He said that he had a cigarette close to him but that he was not smoking because he was aware that other people had been kicked off the site for smoking. He was approached by someone who said there was ‘no smoking in the car’, asked him ‘what is your name?’ and told him to ‘go straight to your manager.’ The Worker explained that when he worked he had a hard hat with his name on it, but he was not wearing it in his case as he was on his break. He said that he was told he could  whatever he wanted in his car when he was out of the site. He said that he was told ‘if I say you’re smoking, you’re smoking.’ He said that he went to his manager and they already knew of the situation.

He was told he was being ‘kicked from the site.’ He said ‘okay, I take my tools.’ But, he was wondering: ‘What is my situation with the Employer now? Am I fired from the Employer or just kicked from the client company site?’

He said that his Employer had three other sites at the time, in addition to the original client company site, one had finished and was just doing some fixings; and a new one was about to start.

He said that he went to pick up his toolbox and to say goodbye to all his coworkers. He said they said they are ‘really sorry’, that he is ‘a good worker’, but they ‘can’t fight the [client company], at this time.’

He said that he got no letter from his Employer.

The manager (on site) had told him that he was finished for good with his Employer. However, he said that he received nothing in writing or by email. He said after twenty-four (24) hours, he emailed and enquired as to his status with the Employer and whether there were any other sites available.

He wrote to his Employer’s HR. She was on leave, so reverted when she was back the following week.

In the email, they were asking for proof of what happened – they only had that one word from the one person – they were asking for a picture or a video.

HR offered to meet with him the following week, in the office, and he accepted. He said he was asked what happened. He explained that he was falsely accused of smoking and that he thought it was revenge (H).

He said that the matter was under investigation for four (4) weeks, and that during that time he had no pay and could not claim Jobseekers Allowance as he had not been fired. He said that the Employer was investigating, and said it would ‘see how it goes.’

He said that at the start of May, he was back working with his Employer and was sent to a different site. He said that the contract was the same but travel expenses paid to the previous job but not to this one.

He said that his Employer said that he could go back to the previous client company site. The Worker said that he was ‘okay to go because he didn’t do anything but didn’t think that was a smart move.’

He expressed the view that his Employer was actually just delaying things until the new client job site opened, then that was offered to him. He also said that the Employer did not pay him any outstanding annual leave when he finished up.

He said that he wanted them to refund him for his losses when he was not working on the basis of the false accusation. He said that his employer told him ‘There is no evidence. Everything is finished.’

He started at the new client site but was unhappy there. He had a chat with one of the company directors after two or three days, who suggested to him that he did not think the Worker should stay with the Respondent Employer, that he thought he should ‘split away.’ He said they agreed that he would be paid for the rest of that week and that he would also be paid for the following week (as notice pay).

He reiterated that he never received anything officially from his Employer, that there was some attempt to ‘kick me [from the site]’, that he was ‘stood down.’

He said that he had opened illness benefit during that period due to the stress of the situation, and  to get some money when he was waiting. He said that he told the Employer he was ‘ready to come back to work whenever you are ready for me to come back, and I will come back to work.’ He said he closed his illness benefit on the Monday and started work three (3) days later.

The Worker filed complaints with the WRC on 22/04/2025.

By document dated 07/05/2025, the HR Manager of the Employer confirmed on its behalf: ‘I do not object to an investigation of the above disputes by an Adjudication Officer.’

However, no appearance was entered by or on behalf of the Employer, at the hearing.

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

IR - SC – 00004168 – Unpaid period of suspension while investigation was ongoing

I find that the manner in which the Worker was treated throughout the period of investigation had procedural deficits.

In light of that, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €3,500 in full and final settlement of this employment dispute.

IR-SC-00004167 – Unfair Dismissal

I find, based on what the Worker outlined at the hearing, that he was not dismissed, and therefore the question of whether he was unfairly dismissed does not arise. He outlined that he and the Employer discussed an agreed exit on an agreed date, and that he received notice pay, subsequent to him starting work on the new site; and that he had been given the option of returning to the previous client site subsequent to being cleared at investigation in relation to the allegation made. For completeness, the Unfair Dismissals complaint is being considered as an Industrial Relations matter, as the Worker had less than twelve (12) months continuous service as an employee of the Employer. As per the Worker’s submissions at hearing, the Worker had previously worked for an agency, assigned to the Employer, and was then offered a contract of employment directly with the Employer, starting in December 2024.

Industrial Relations; Unpaid Suspension; Investigation; Unfair Dismissal;