ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004196
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | General Operative | Metal Fabricators |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act
| IR - SC - 00004196 | 28/04/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Date of Hearing: 14/10/2025
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 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/employee 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 he 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.
There is an obligation on the parties to a dispute to be able to demonstrate that they have engaged in a good faith process of resolution before presenting any matter to the WRC. The WRC should be seen as the last port of call and not as the first port of call. There is an expectation that parties will have exhausted the workplace mechanisms for bringing a grievance or complaint.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. 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. 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. The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 28th of April 2025. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form as follows: I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding what I believe to be an unfair dismissal by my former employer. On (insert date), I approached my employer to inquire about the status of my wages, which were overdue. Shortly after making this inquiry, I was dismissed from my position without proper explanation or due process.
I believe this termination was a direct result of my inquiry about my pay, which is both unjust and in breach of my basic employment rights. I did not receive any formal warnings or disciplinary notices prior to my dismissal.
I would appreciate if the Workplace Relations Commission would review my case and advise on the next steps. Please let me know what documentation or further information is needed from my side. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The Complainant alleges that he was Unfairly dismissed. In circumstances where the Complainant had less than one years’ service the Complaint is brought under the Industrial Relations legislation. 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 29th of July 2025 - and posted to the Respondent’s address in the ordinary way. I am satisfied that the Respondent chose (for reasons only the Respondent can know) not to attend this hearing and it is noted that the Respondent has previously engaged with the WRC in connection with this matter. The Respondent has sent some paperwork to the WRC and in particular the WRC has considered a letter sent by BW on the 27th of May 2025 outlining the reasons for the dismissal herein. It should be noted that the Complainant’s oral evidence is considered by me to be unchallenged other than any points of clarification which I might have put to the Complainant during the course of the hearing. I am of course cognisant of the Respondent’s letter aforementioned. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I have also given consideration to the evidence adduced by the Complainant in the course of the hearing.
The Complainant commenced his employment at the end of January or start of February 2025. The Complainant was engaged as a general Operative in this busy metal fabrication plant.
The Complainant only worked for eight weeks with the Respondent. The Complainant gave evidence that pay day was on a Friday. He said that the money would normally arrive into his account by 3pm on a given Friday. I accept that the Complainant is a man living from paycheck to paycheck. In accepting this, I understand that the Complainant relies entirely on his next paycheck to cover basic living expenses—like rent, food, bills, and transportation—with little or no money left over for savings or emergencies. Typically, there is no financial cushion so that if a paycheck is delayed or an unexpected expense comes up the Complainant may not be able to cover them. I understand that the Complainant lives with a constant worry about money and stability.
I cannot know if the Respondent, in the person of BW, was aware of any of this but I would have thought that given the cost of living crises that has been an ongoing feature of day to day life for the last number of years that the Company Director would be well aware that people rely on their wages coming in on time.
On Good Friday of this year (2025) the Complainant’s wages did not arrive as expected. This had never happened before, and it seems the Complainant rang up BW in a state of agitation concerning his missing wages. The Complainant has three children and was facing into a long weekend with no funds.
The Respondent has since written to the WRC stating that the Complainant’s wages had been paid but that the Respondent’s own designated recipient was a Credit Union and it seems the wages were not processed on Good Friday. The money was received on the Monday The Complainant was called up to BW’s office at the next available opportunity and was summarily dismissed. I am satisfied that the dismissal was as a direct result of the phone call made and that BW took umbrage at the tone and manner of the phone call.
The Respondent has provided me with an induction form signed by the Complainant on the 31st of January 2025. The said form suggests that there is an Employee Handbook operating in this workplace. It seems likely to me that somewhere in that handbook is a Disciplinary Procedure which outlines the circumstances which might give rise to a Summary Dismissal. There might also be detail on what other steps might be taken to if a disciplinary issue has arisen in the workplace.
It is quite clear to me that the Respondent -BW- opted not to follow any such in-house procedures. I have no sense that even the most basic requirements outlined in the Code of Practise on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000) were observed.
Whilst I might be willing to accept that the Complainant over-stepped the mark on the Good Friday and may even accept that the Complainant was rude enough to his Employer to warrant a sanction up to and including dismissal, I do not accept that the manner of his Dismissal was fair and in accordance with best and fair practise. I would go far as to say that the manner of the dismissal would have to have had a chilling effect in the workplace where so little regard was given for the rights and livelihood of another.
In the circumstances I am finding that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent Employer. I have been advised by the Complainant that a subsequent accident which happened some four weeks after his dismissal has rendered the Complainant unfit for work. The Complainant has been on illness benefit and therefore not in a position to look for alternative employment.
The Complainant has therefore lost out on four weeks of remuneration by reason of this unjustified dismissal.
|
Recommendation:
Pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 I am obliged to make such recommendations as might be appropriate on foot of the investigation conducted and based on my opinion on the merits of the dispute as already outlined above, and the positions taken by the parties thereto. I note that any consideration on the merits of the dispute should 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. The Respondent herein failed to utilise the internal disciplinary policy.
Having already articulated my opinion on the merits of the within dispute, I am recommending that the Respondent pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,200.00 within four weeks of the date of this recommendation.
Dated: 26-11-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|