ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003548

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	Pizza Assistant	Pizza Delivery/Collection Restaurant

Representatives

Self

Owner

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 - 00003548	12/12/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Date of Hearing: 10/04/2025

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and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.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 complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 12/12/2024. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 13/12/2024 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 within21 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 friend. The Employer and a supervisor attended the hearing. The hearing was assisted with the services of a WRC appointed Urdu interpreter.

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. At the end of the hearing both parties confirmed that they were satisfied that they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all their relevant information.

Background:

The Worker was employed in a Pizza restaurant from 9/11/2024 until 06/12/2024. He alleges that he left following what he considered an assault by a supervisor and he also alleges that this and other conduct amounted to bullying behaviour. He also states that he is in dispute with the Employer over a payment he did not receive.

Summary of Workers Case:

The complainant commenced working as a Pizza assistant with the Employer on 09/11/2024. He worked part time hours and he was unsure of what his hourly rate of pay was. An incident occurred on 06/12/2024 when he was questioned about his failure to wear a uniform cap. He had left this at home. He alleges that the supervisor started to abuse him and teased him but he ignored this. At some stage the supervisor touched him with a hot pizza pan and he felt a burning sensation. The Worker believes that this was done intentionally. The Worker states that he was verbally abused by the supervisor and he asked him to stop. The Worker states that he removed his apron and uniform shirt as he was distressed as a result of this. He changed clothes and reported the incident at the local Garda station.

The Worker stated that he attended an Emergency Department and had to take medication due to the stress and pain he had. He did not return to work after this. The Worker stated that he reported the matter to a manager. He also states that he was not paid and the Employer arranged for a delivery driver to give him an envelope with €185 but this was all that he received.

The Worker is seeking payment of the money due and looking to ensure that no other Worker has to experience what happened to him.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer operates a Pizza collection and delivery restaurant. They employ several operatives and comply with the employment regulations and have undergone a WRC inspection. This is the first time that they had a complaint submitted to the WRC in the thirteen years they are in operation. The Worker commenced employment on 09/11/2024 on a part time basis. He was paid €12.70 per hour. The Employer paid some money to the Worker based on the hours worked. To receive the remainder of his pay the Worker was requested on several occasions to provide the Employer with his PPS number and GNIB documentation. The Employer states that they must comply with the relevant regulations and the only reason the Worker was not paid was because of his failure to provide this information.

In relation to the Worker’s complaint of bullying the Employer states that on the day of the incident the Worker attended duty without a cap. This is a food safety requirement and when he was asked about this he stated that he left his cap at home and he then ignored the supervisor. The Area Manager called into the restaurant and he noticed that the Worker was in a poor mood and he asked him what was wrong. The Worker removed his work apron and shirt and threw then on the floor and said that he would no longer work there. This incident took place in front of customers and continued outside the restaurant with a delivery driver.

The Employer states that the version of events outlined by the Worker is not correct and the Area Manager was present at that time. He observed the unhappy disposition of the Worker when he attended the restaurant. The Employer stated that they bore no ill will towards the Worker and are happy to sort out any money due when he provides the required documentation.

Conclusions:

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

There is no doubt that the relationship between the former Worker and the Employer is now beyond repair. As the Worker is no longer employed there is no merit in making a recommendation in relation to the working relationship. I accept the Employers undertaking to pay the Worker all outstanding amounts subject to the receipt of the documentation.

At the hearing the Worker outlined that he was seeking “justice” and required a recommendation in relation to various matters which are outside the jurisdiction of the WRC. This was explained to the Worker and I am confident that he now understands this position.

Recommendation:

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

I am recommending that the Worker provide the required details to the Employer within fourteen days of this recommendation. I am recommending that the Employer then ensures that the Worker is paid all outstanding amounts as soon as possible after this date.

I am also recommending that the Employer provide updated training to its supervisors in relation to dignity at work.

Dated: 02-05-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Outstanding pay. Dignity at work.