ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001927
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Kitchen Assistant | A Food Business |
Representatives | Appeared in Person | No Appearance by or on behalf of the Worker |
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 - 00001927 | 25/10/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Date of Hearing: 25/08/2025
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.
Background:
On 25 October 2023, the Worker, submitted a report to the WRC, where he contended, he was treated poorly in a food business employment. He did not file a written submission. He did not attend the scheduled hearing. He did not provide any reason why he had not complied with the WRC procedures in Disputes Resolution. On November 1, 2023, the WRC notified the Proprietor of the named business of the dispute. He was canvassed as to whether he objected to a proposed Investigation by an Adjudicator?. Two days later, the Employer responded and denied the allegations raised, but did not object to participation in an Adjudication hearing. This correspondence was shared with the worker. On 6 November 2023, the Worker consented to receiving correspondence by email. On 11 December 2023, both parties were invited to hearing scheduled for 15 January 2024. This was subsequently cancelled and rescheduled for 25 August 2025 at 10 am in Cork. The Employer attended with a Human Resource Manager . There was no attendance by or on behalf of the worker. I have waited the required 5 days, and he has not made any contact with the WRC to explain or excuse his delay. I am obliged to press on with my investigation. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker introduced himself as a Kitchen Assistant of Indian nationality who worked an 18-hr week. I did not have any other employment details or documents on tenure or pay. He outlined that he was undertaking a Master’s Programme and described his experiences in seeking work with the employer. He conveyed a disappointment in the lack of clarity in his pay and recorded a distressing experience where he was challenged by the employer in the 3-day employment. He ended by writing: “I hope my report is taken seriously to ensure that no one else has to endure such mistreatment. This incident marked my first job experience and has left me feeling deeply unhappy ever since. Thank you for your attention “ The Worker did not attend the hearing. He did not offer a reason for his absence .
|
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer disputed the claim and was disappointed that the worker was not in attendance to discuss events as they truly occurred. I gave the Employer the opportunity to respond to the claim. The Employer outlined that he ran a food business, where a market stall was a component. He had been working on this stall one day when a fellow country man stopped to talk. He was pleased to share discourse . The Employer had built up an established food business over many years and on several sites. He denied that the worker was employed at his business. Instead, he said that he had expressed an interest in cooking, and he facilitated him trying out some food preparation. He had hoped that the worker would consider a probationary period of work, but this did not materialise as the worker did not return. He had not seen or heard from him since Wintertime 2023 and denied the allegations. The Employer emphasised that there could be no question that the worker was chopping potatoes as this product is purchased in an already chopped state.
|
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
My role in cases submitted under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 is to investigate a dispute between employer and employee and if I find merit in that dispute, I can make a recommendation to assist the parties on a way forward. In this case, the worker has submitted details of a dispute, but he has not come to speak to it at hearing. The Employer, for the purposes of the Act attended the hearing and was understandably aggrieved that he did not meet the worker.
I am satisfied that the worker was on notice of the hearing and did not make an appearance.
As a result, I am unable to investigate this matter any further and must conclude that I have not found merit in this dispute as I am not satisfied that the complainant in this case is a worker for the purposes of the Act.
It may have been helpful, if the worker had decided that he did not wish to progress his case, that he might have alerted the WRC much sooner.
I have not found merit in this Dispute.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
It may have been helpful, if the worker had decided that he did not wish to progress his case, that he might have alerted the WRC much sooner.
I have not found merit in this Dispute.
Dated: 05/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Non-Appearance of the worker in a Dispute |