ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000579
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A worker | A medical products manufacturer |
Representatives | Francis Drumm BL | Jacob and Twomey Solicitors LLP |
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 - 00000579 | 22/08/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Date of Hearing: 18/4/2023, 30/07/2024 and 17/09/2024
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).
Background:
The worker commenced employment with the employer on the 19 January 2009. He resigned on the 16 March 2023. At the time of his resignation, his role was that of Global Manufacturing Manager. His basic annual salary was €162,654.77. In addition, he received bonus payments, pension contributions, stock options, car allowance and other benefits. |
Summary of Workers Case:
In the complaint form filed on the 22 August 2022, the Complainant set out that he had a trade dispute that he wished to have investigated. He went on to set out that he was in dispute with his employer in relation to his terms and conditions of employment. Just before the first hearing date, the worker resigned his position. In his submission filed, the worker set out that his dispute with the employer was in relation to unilateral changes to his terms and conditions of employment and reductions in pay without consultation and agreement. At the hearing he submitted that I had the freedom to deal with his complaint in an overarching way and I was not constrained by any of the his parallel claims under the employment law Acts. He submitted that I had broad scope to deal with all matters on which submissions were made to me. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that the complaint under the Industrial Relations Act were not detailed in any meaningful way in his complaint form. It submitted that what the worker was complaining about was little more than a repetition of the complaints under the Payment of Wages Act and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I have addressed the complaints of the worker in a separate decision under the employment law acts and I make no recommendation in this complaint. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I have addressed the complaints of the worker in a separate decision and I make no recommendation in this complaint.
Dated: 08-01-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Duplicate complaints. |