ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003208

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Sales Manager	A Vitamin Producer

Representatives

Dispute:

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00066339-001

27/09/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Date of Hearing: 12/03/2025

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, the said Director General will then refer such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence/testimony of the parties and their witnesses and will also take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.

A Trade Dispute in this context will include any dispute between an employer and a worker which is connected with the employment or the non-employment, or with the terms and conditions relating to and/or affecting the employment of any person.

I have confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the said trade dispute as described in Section 13. It is noted that Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendations, I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto. I note that any consideration on the merits of the dispute will include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised before bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC.

Where applicable, this investigation may involve an assessment of whether processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practise on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000).

It is noted that the Complainant herein is alleging that fair procedures were not followed and that she was unfairly dismissed. It is further noted that the complainant has less than one year of service with the Employer. In such circumstances, Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 allows the worker to refer the dismissal to the WRC as a dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts.

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly.

The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 27th of September 2024.

As the within matter is a dispute between parties and brought before the WRC using the Industrial Relations Acts it was heard in private and the recommendation is anonymised.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Complainant was not represented and made her own case. The Complainant alleges that she was Unfairly dismissed after five months of employment.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 12th of February 2025 - and posted to the Registered Office of the Respondent Company.

By an email dated the 5th of March 2025 the Respondent Operations Manager communicated with the WRC that it would not be represented at the hearing. Their non-attendance at the hearing did not therefore come as a surprise.

Conclusions:

The Complainant has worked for twenty years in the marketing and sales of pharmaceuticals and related products. Before coming to work with the Respondent herein, the Complainant had spent seventeen years working with one of the Ireland’s largest pharmaceutical distribution companies. She came to the Respondent company with an enviable understanding of the Irish retail pharmacy market as well as a wealth of contacts. The Respondent company is in the production of vitamins and nutritional supplements.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent company after a recruitment process which identified her skillset as having value for the company. The Complainant commenced her employment in February of 2024. The Complainant indicated that she was given very little training in the products she was to sell and was almost immediately sent on the road to secure a new customer base. As I understand it, the Respondent was anxious to supply directly to |Pharmacies and avoid having to use a wholesaler. The Complainant was tasked with the job of creating new accounts with the Pharmacy owners with whom she had built up a strong rapport over the previous two decades.

The Complainant’s annual salary was in the sum of €70,000.00 plus bonuses.

The Complainant says she worked hard and did well. She was on the road a lot and only ever returned to the base on a Tuesday morning though the Management meetings allocated for this time rarely added any value to her job. The Complainant says she set up over one hundred and forty new accounts for the Respondent company. The Complainant says she was never told exactly how these accounts performed in terms of sales buy was confident that she had increased sales figures.

Very unexpectedly the company owner and General Manager terminated the Complainant’s employment on the 8th of 2024. There was no preamble to this decision, and the Complainant had no inkling that her work was at issue. In fact, all that was said to the Complainant was that things are not working out.

In effect the Complainant was summarily Dismissed on that date and was forced to return her company car within a few days. The Complainant has not to this date been given a good reason for the termination of her employment. The Complainant has herself formed the view that the Respondent engaged the Complainant to use her contacts in the field and once these had been exhausted, she was of little use to the company.

The Respondent has, of it’s own volition, opted not to attend this hearing and I have therefore not heard the reasoning they might have used to justify their actions.

On balance I am bound to accept the Complainant’s case that she was unfairly dismissed without any proper procedures being used to forewarn or forearm her.

The Complainant is at a financial loss arising out of this treatment and this fact is reflected in the recommendation.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I acknowledge that the Adjudication process must avoid making a recommendation which has a collective impact on a body of workers. The Adjudicator must avoid making a recommendation which has a collective impact on a body of workers.

CA-00066339-001 – I recommend that the Respondent company does pay to the Complainant herein the sum of €35,000.00 compensation for the unfair manner of the dismissal wherein no regard was had for the procedural rights and entitlement of the Complainant as an Employee. This money should be paid within eight weeks of the date of this recommendation.

Dated: 1st May 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: