ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003929
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Hair Stylist | Hair Saloon |
Representatives | Self | Alistair Rutherdale, BL, instructed by Aidan Dempsey, FH O’Reilly and Co, Solicitors. |
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 - 00003929 | 06/03/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 18/09/2025
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and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.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 06/03/2025. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 09/05/2025 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 himself and was accompanied by a relative. The Employer was represented by Mr Alistair Rutherdale, BL, instructed by Mr Aidan Dempsey, FH O’Reilly and Company, Solicitors and one other representative from the Employer.
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 has been in the hairdressing business for approximately 40 years. He has highlighted a number of issues which he submits have led to him being isolated in the workplace and bullied. The Employer has not notice this and submits that a professional working relationship exists. |
Summary of Workers Case:
It is the Worker’s submission that the Employer has no procedures in place to deal with bullying and harassment. The Employer has not fulfilled its obligation in relation to a duty of care to the Worker. The Worker outlined that the examples of bullying are daily bullying in the form of isolation, ignoring him, removing some of his wages, no support from management and no support in relation to his serious health issues. The Worker believes that the Employer is trying to create a situation where the Worker will walk out the door and leave. The Worker also provided information in relation to the reduction in his pay since 2019. He stated that he was unhappy that his wages have not increased for some time and based on figures he obtained from Revenue this shows that his earnings have decreased. The Worker also noted that there have been national wage agreements which increased wages in the region of 2.5% but the Employer does not apply these. The Worker also stated that the minimum daily pay of €130 was never increased since 2010. The Worker believes that he has invoked the procedure set out in his contract of employment but he has not received any support or the Employer never investigated matters. The Worker is clear that there are no procedures in place to deal with a complaint from a Worker. The Worker had several follow up letters but his situation remains unchanged. The Worker is committed to continuing in employment. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
A representative from the Employer does not believe that there is any substance to the Worker’s dispute. This is linked to other complaints and began in 2019 when there was a change to the Worker’s bonus payment. The Employer has not observed any isolation and did not receive any examples to support his belief. It is the Employer’s submission that there was a previous mediation process which did not result in an agreement. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
This dispute has been ongoing in the workplace for a number of years. It appears to have commenced in or about 2019, when changes to a bonus system were proposed and which the Worker did not feel able to accept. The outcome of this protracted disagreement is that many subsequent incidents and events have either arisen from, or are perceived to be linked with, that original matter. As a result, the Worker and the Employer now interact only on a strictly professional basis. The same approach has also extended to interactions with colleagues.
As an Adjudication Officer, my role is to formulate a recommendation that may assist the parties in resolving the issues. Any such recommendation will not have retrospective effect and will not address residual feelings, perceptions, or beliefs. I also do not consider that another mediation process would be likely to achieve a positive outcome.
It must, however, be acknowledged that despite the difficulties experienced over a number of years, the parties have continued to maintain a professional working relationship.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The recommendations outlined below are intended to provide a framework of practices designed to enable all parties to “draw a line under the past” and to commit to moving forward in a manner that supports the normalisation of workplace relations.
A priority for the Employer should be to review the Workplace Relations Commission’s “Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work”. To achieve this, the following steps are recommended:
Policy Review and Alignment: The Employer should undertake a comprehensive review of its existing policies and procedures. This review should ensure full alignment with the principles and procedures set out in the WRC Code of Practice.
Engagement of HR Expertise: An independent or external HR professional should be engaged to assist in this review. The HR professional should also provide guidance on best practice in implementing and communicating workplace policies.
Clear Communication to Staff: The revised procedures should be communicated to all staff in a clear and accessible manner. Employees should be informed of how issues will be raised, addressed, and resolved in line with the Code.
Training and Awareness: Training should be provided to managers and staff to ensure understanding of the revised procedures. This should include guidance on respectful communication, conflict resolution, and the maintenance of professional standards.
Structured Reporting and Response Mechanisms: A transparent process for reporting workplace concerns should be established, including clear timelines and points of contact. Responses to complaints or disputes should be timely, impartial, and consistent with the Code.
Periodic Review: The Employer should conduct a formal review of the effectiveness of these measures after 12 months. Feedback should be sought from staff and, where necessary, further adjustments made to strengthen the process.
By implementing these recommendations, the Employer will be well placed to provide a structured, fair, and transparent framework for addressing workplace issues. This will support the continuation of a professional working relationship between the parties and help prevent the recurrence of similar disputes in the future.
Dated: 16/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Bullying and harassment procedures |