ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003663
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Sales Stylist | Retail Outlet |
Representatives | Self | DLA Piper Ireland LLP |
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 - 00003663 | 15/01/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 16/04/2025
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.
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and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.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 12/01/2025. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 16/01/2025 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 within 21 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 represented herself. The Employer or a representative on its behalf did not attend the hearing. The Employer’s representative submitted a letter confirming that they would not attend as it was not appropriate for the WRC to make a recommendation in relation to this claim.
I explained at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified 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 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 the Worker confirmed that she was satisfied that she was given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all her relevant information.
Background:
The Worker attended an interview for the role of Sales Stylist on 02/10/2024. She was issued with a contract of employment on 09/10/2024 and this contract stated that this was a permanent role. The Employer reissued a revised contract on 15/10/2024 confirming the error in relation to the permanent role as this should have been a fixed term contract. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker believes that the contract was changed without her consent and her permanent contract was cancelled. She did not agree that she would be a temporary employee and did not sign a temporary contract of employment. The Worker states that she always believed that she had a permanent role. |
Summary of Employer’s’ Case:
The Employer, in their written correspondence to the WRC, submits that the Worker was interviewed on 02/10/2024 for a fixed term part-time sales stylist. She was issued with a contract of employment on 09/10/2024 which erroneously stated that this was a permanent role. The contract of employment was reissued on 15/10/2024 and it was clarified that this was a fixed term role with an end date of 12/01/2025. The Employer employed a number of Sales Stylists on a part-time basis at that time due to the anticipated increase in demand over the holiday season. The Worker did not raise any concerns or complaints about the amended contract and at no stage did she indicate that she considered herself to be a permanent employee. Prior to the end date all fixed term Workers were advised that there were a number of permanent roles available and they were welcome to apply. The Worker applied and this indicates that she considered herself to be employed on a fixed term basis. She was not successful in her application. The complainant also acknowledges that she was informed on 31/12/2024 that her temporary contract would not be extended or made permanent. She raised no concerns or queries in relation to this. The Employer perceives this claim as an attempt by the Worker to use the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to circumvent the requirement of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1997 for an employee to have at least 12 months service before making a complaint for unfair dismissal. It is the Employer’s position that there is no trade dispute as the Worker’s contract of employment came to an end. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
Having carefully reviewed all the information I cannot find the Employer acted or behaved in a manner which was designed to change the Worker’s employment status. The error was notified and rectified. No issue was raised at that time or subsequently by the Worker. The Worker did not avail of the Employer’s grievance procedure or make any effort to engage with the Employer to resolve this dispute. This is a prerequisite before submitting her complaint to the WRC.
Having regard to the foregoing points, and as the Worker’s contract has ended I do not recommend in favour of the Worker. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As the Worker’s fixed-term contract has ended I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.
Dated: 08th of May 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Fixed-term contract. Grievance procedure. |