Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A General Operative

An Employer

Representatives

Self   

 A Director of the Employer

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 - 00004502

16/06/2025

The process invoked by the Worker is governed by Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended). The Worker raised a number of issues arising from his former employment with the Employer which commenced on the 19th of February 2024 and terminated by reason of redundancy on the 30th of June 2025.

In a WRC Complaint Form delivered on the 16th of June 2025 the Worker’s submission included (in summary and where relevant to the present referral) the following:

“Our concerns began when, after working for the company for over a year, none of us had received a written contract. When we started asking our manager about it, instead of addressing the issue, they kept avoiding the matter with excuses and after putting more pressure to get a contract. 

We decided to escalate the issue and submitted a complaint to the WRC [Complaint received by the WRC on 19th of March 2025]. On April 25th[2025], a meeting took place with a major client of the company, [“the Client”] who was visiting our workplace. Management explicitly told us that if any of us disclosed our situation to the client, we would be immediately dismissed and lose all our benefits. This threat created an extremely hostile and intimidating environment.

Furthermore, there were multiple breaches of contract. The company had verbally committed to reviewing our salaries after six months of employment, which never occurred. Later, they stated that the salary reviews would not take place at all.

After our complaints, the company issued us a so-called “contract,” which I refused to sign due to several unacceptable and unfair clauses. These included terms stating they could terminate our employment at any time without reason, and other conditions that were never disclosed during the hiring process. They even wrote in this new contract that a salary review would take place on May 1st, but again, this was not fulfilled. It became clear they never intended to honour that commitment and were instead planning to dismiss us.

After the continued threats, pressure, and a workplace environment that I can only describe as harassing and psychologically distressing, we were informed that we were going to be made redundant. This was an extremely difficult time for me, and the lack of support, fairness, and respect from management severely affected both my well-being and professional stability. The timing of this situation caused serious financial difficulties. I had already booked a two-week holiday for July, and I was also planning to move out of the house I am currently living in. Now, I can no longer afford my trip, and my plans have been completely disrupted. I’ve been unable to secure a new place to live, partly because the company never provided me with a proper employment contract something most landlords require. On top of everything, they have left me without a job, further worsening my situation.

I ask that the seriousness of this matter be recognized and handled with the urgency and attention it deserves. No employee should be subjected to such treatment for simply asserting their legal rights.

The Employer was represented by a Director (“the Director”) who made submissions on its behalf as follows:

It was conceded that the Worker was not provided with a contract or any written terms of employment.  In April 2025, the Respondent’s HR Administrator attempted to rectify the matter by issuing contracts containing terms and conditions of employment to the Worker, however but the Worker declined to accept this contract.  In an effort to resolve the matter amicably the Employer offered the Worker a payment equivalent to four weeks’ pay. The Worker did not accept this offer.

The Employer did not advise the Worker that should he speak to the Client’s Reps during their visit regarding the processes going on within the Company (in relation to contracts), that this would be taken as gross misconduct and they would be terminated. The Employer cannot control what its Team Leaders or Managers say to employees on every occasion, however it would not be the Employer’s intention to take action against a Worker for speaking to any rep onsite. The Employer did not accept that the manger spoke to the Worker as alleged. 

The Employer’s director followed up with another team member via phone call to discuss these concerns and believes that they were resolved. The Employer’s director followed up with the manager in question and told him he shouldn’t have said that.

The Employer contended that the Worker, along with sixteen other employees was made redundant when the workshop aspect of the business ceased. The selection criterion applied universally was: last In - first out.

The present dispute was submitted by way of an Industrial Relations referral. As stated by the Labour Court in Recommendation LCR23130 (Issued on the 7th of March 2025): 

“The Court’s role when hearing appeals under section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act is to hear the parties and – based on its expertise in the management of employment relationships – make a recommendation as to how the matter in dispute might be resolved. In industrial relations case, there are no matters of law arising. It is up to the parties to decide to accept a recommendation made by the Court or not.”

The foregoing statement is equally applicable when, as in the present case, the dispute is referred at first instance to an Adjudication Officer.

I have considered all of the issues raised in the present referral and I am also mindful that other issues have been raised which are governed by other legislation and in respect of which separate decisions are required. My analysis of the dispute is based on the submissions made and my discussions with the parties who appeared at the hearing.

At the time when the events which led to the dispute occurred, the Employers business was conducted in two separate locations and the Director who appeared for the Employer and made submissions on its behalf was based primarily at a different location to the one where the Worker was based and the Worker was under the supervision of local management at that location. The Director who appeared for the Respondent said that he did his best to investigate the actions of local management when a communication was made to him on the 25th of April 2025 from a team leader at the Worker’s location complaining about certain actions which had been taken by the Workshop Manager at that location. The Director contacted that manager and as far as he was aware the matter had been resolved. However, he did not follow up with the person who had made the complaint or any of the workers affected by the alleged actions of the local manager. As a result, the Worker felt intimidated and insecure and continued to do so up to the end of his employment.

The Director said that he did his best to resolve the Worker’s grievances and that he acted in good faith at all times. As regards the difficulties which arose when the contract terms were issued to the Worker, the Director identified certain communications which were apparently made to the Worker when he was interviewed for the job which were at odds with the terms which were set out in the contract which was offered to the Worker. He was not involved in that interview, but he said that the Employer had not intended to make any promises regarding pay reviews and any indications which were given were made without his approval. 

The Worker accepted that the problems which arose and which led to the dispute were not caused personally by the Director who appeared for the Employer, and I accept that he acted in good faith in attempting to resolve the dispute. That said, it does appear that there was a lack of coordination as between the Director and other members of management to the extent that communications were made with which the Director did not agree or would not have agreed. Whilst the Director was not personally to blame for the unauthorised actions of persons conducting interviews or supervising the Worker at local level, the Employer as a corporate entity must accept responsibility for those actions. The admitted failure to provide a contract or other document evidencing the terms and conditions of the Worker’s employment led to a lack of clarity regarding those terms and conditions which in turn led to conflict as between the Worker and local management. Moreover, insofar as promises (whether authorised or otherwise) were made at interview as regards pay reviews, had written terms been issued in a timely manner then the Worker would have had clarity as to where he stood from an early stage rather than being disappointed that a promised pay increase did not occur many months later.

As regards the redundancy of the Worker, I accept that the selection criterion of last in - first out was used and that this was applied equally and fairly. The Worker identified two individuals who it was contended had less service than he and yet managed to keep their jobs. The Employer explained that these individuals were also dismissed in the redundancy process. They were subsequently employed by another company on a day-one basis. Even though this company was related to the Employer company these individuals approached that company themselves and were hired. They were not transferred by the Employer. The thrust of the challenge to the redundancy by the Worker was to the effect that he was made redundant because of the complaints made regarding his contract. No claim for unfair dismissal was made. Based on the submission of the parties I accept that the Employer ceased work of the kind that the Worker was engaged to do and that a genuine redundancy situation existed and that the Worker and fifteen others were made redundant as a result. I also accept that the last in first out principle was properly applied. As regards the issue of the identified workers who were employed by another company related to the Employer company, this is beyond the scope of the challenge made by the Worker. Although such circumstances might be relevant to an unfair dismissal claim they are not relevant to the specific claim contended for or implied by the Wirker which is that the redundancy was concocted to remove him for having complained about not receiving a contract and refusing to sign the one that was eventually proffered. This argument is defeated by the fact that a large group of workers was dismissed in a redundancy process using a selection criterion which is well-established and recognised in industrial relations practice.   

Returning to the essential purpose of an industrial relations referral as laid down by the Labour Court (as set out above), I will avoid making any legal findings arising from any of the issues canvassed at the hearing and instead I will “make a recommendation as to how the matter in dispute might be resolved”. In doing so I am mindful that there is an overlap as between the issues raised in the present industrial relations referral and those which are the subject matter of claims made pursuant to other legislation which were also heard at the adjudication hearing and in respect of which decisions are pending. At the hearing I discussed the issue of the overlap as between the present industrial relations referral and the other claims which were also heard that day. I suggested to the parties that I would make a recommendation in the present process with a view to resolving all of the disputes without the necessity for decisions in relation to the other claims but that the parties were free to disregard the recommendation and to seek decisions on the other claims if the recommendation did not bring about a full resolution. The parties indicated that they were agreeable to this proposal. Accordingly, I will make a recommendation as to how all disputes might be resolved by the parties which will be subject to a tight time-limit. The parties would then be free to engage with each other on foot of that recommendation. By such means the parties could reach an agreement in relation to all issues by the date set in the recommendation in which case the other claims could be withdrawn. If no agreement is reached or is likely to be reached by the date suggested, then the parties could so indicate and decisions on the other claims can issue. A further option is for the parties to request an extension of the time-limit set out in the recommendation to an agreed date, to facilitate further discussions. Accordingly, while the parties are invited to report progress towards resolution or otherwise as suggested (and to seek more time if required), it is not proposed to reconvene the present referral process or to reconsider the substantive recommendation made.

Having considered the submissions of the parties I recommend concession of the Worker’s claims on the basis that he was not to blame for what occurred and was placed under considerable stress and inconvenience by the acts or omissions of the Employer as a corporate entity. I recommend that the Employer pay to the Worker the sum of €7,000 in full and final settlement of all disputes in the manner formulated below. It should also be understood that the recommendation below arises from a confidential process, and such confidentiality also applies to the implementation of the recommendation save and except for any necessary disclosure to revenue and/or to tax advisors as may be required by law or to facilitate implementation.

Terms of Employment