ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002845
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Worker | Employer |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Ms. Sonam Gaitonde, Arthur Cox |
Dispute:
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 - 00002845 | 09/07/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Date of Hearing: 01/11/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
On 9th July 2024 the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that he had been subject to unfair and coercive investigation meeting, that the Employer had breached certain safety standards and that the Respondent did not provide adequate training. By response the Employer, via their representative, denied each of the complaints raised by the Worker on a substantive basis. In addition to the foregoing, they submitted that the Worker had not availed of the relevant internal mechanism prior to referring the present dispute. Following the Employer’s failure to object to the matter within the prescribed timeframe, the dispute was listed for hearing on 1st November 2024. Said hearing was conducted 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. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. Both parties issued substantive submissions in advance of the hearing. At the outset of the hearing, the Adjudicator sought to canvass a preliminary issue with the Worker. By response, the Worker accepted that he had not engaged with the Employer’s internal procedures in relation to the substance of the dispute. In such circumstances, the recommendation below will discuss this issue in isolation. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
At the outset of the hearing, the Worker accepted that he had not engaged with the Respondents internal procedures regarding the investigation of grievances raised by him, include the subject matter of the present dispute.
In the matter of Westair Aviation Limited -v- A Worker LCR22734, the Labour Court found that in relation to the referral of trade disputes, they are,
“…the Court of last resort and therefore in circumstances where the Complainant had not exhausted the internal procedure it was premature to refer the issue to the WRC and on to the Labour Court. On that basis his complaint must fail.”
Having regard to the foregoing and the accepted position of the parties, I find that it would be inappropriate to make any recommendation in relation to the present matter. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In circumstances whereby the subject matter of the dispute has not been canvassed by way of internal procedure, I make no recommendation in relation to the same.
Dated: 20th May 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Internal Procedures, Court of Last Resort |