ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003330
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Receptionist | An Acupuncture Clinic |
Representatives |
| Hugh Hegarty, Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00003330 | 24/10/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Date of Hearing: 19/11/2025
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.
Summary of Workers Case:
On October 5, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., the respondent accused employees of being irresponsible and not contributing to the company during an online group chat. When the complainant requested clarification she was removed from the group chat. Following this, she was informed that she no longer needed to come to work. Additionally, she claimed that, because there was no employment contract the respondent could terminate her employment at will without providing anycompensation.
The complainant confirmed that she got a new job a week after leaving the respondent. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The respondent accepted that the termination, while it within one year of the complainant’s commencement, had not followed any due process. It had intended to object to a hearing of the complaint but did not do so in time. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. While the complainant had less than one year’s service, she is nonetheless entitled to the courtesy of some procedural fairness in the manner in which her employment was to be terminated. Given that she had not acquired the protections afforded by the Unfair Dismissals’ Act 1977, the procedural requirements are somewhat less demanding than where that Act applies. Indeed, she was only a few days short of acquiring that protection when her employment was terminated. But a worker is entitled, for example, to the courtesy of some explanation as to why her employment is being terminated and the opportunity to respond to whatever alleged shortcomings have given rise to the decision. In this case, it was a peremptory decision, and she is entitled to a remedy as provided for with a referral under this legislation. In circumstances where a complainant under the Unfair Dismissals Act has no losses attributable to the termination there is provision for the payment of one month’s compensation. That is a useful yardstick, and I apply it here (with some small rounding in her favour). In this case the complainant secured new employment after a week. It was accepted by both sides at the hearing that her average weekly wage in the six months before the termination was €336.29 and I recommend that the employer pay her €1350.00. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the breach of her rights under the Act I uphold the complaint and recommend that the employer pay the complainant €1350.00. This payment does not attract any statutory deductions, and s should be paid to her net.
Dated: 26-11-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Termination of Employment IR Act |