Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Operative

Steel Producer

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. Peter Dunlea, Peninsula Business Services

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 - 00003383

06/11/2024

The Worker commenced employment on 29th July 2024. The Worker was a full-time employee, in receipt of an average weekly wage of €800. The Worker’s tenure was brief, with the same coming to an end on 5th November 2024.

On 6th November 2024, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, the Worker alleged that he was bullied and harassed by a former colleague in the course of his employment. He further submitted that he was dismissed from employment without any form of procedure or being afforded the ability to advocate for his continued employment. While a representative for the Employer attended the hearing, no rebutting submission was received in relation to these allegations.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 14th March 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker was engaged with the Employer via an employment agency. Shortly following the commencement of his employment, the Worker was subjected to passive aggressive and unwanted comments regarding the standard of his work by a colleague. The Worker reported these issues to his line manager, he was informed that he was to continue with his work and was instructed to abandon his complaint.

As the Worker had made no progress reporting the matter locally, he issued a lengthy text message to his contact within the employment agency. This message outlined, in detail, the adverse behaviour the Worker had been subject to, and specifically requested that the matter be progressed through the agency’s formal procedures. While a short response was received, no substantive response to the complaint was issued, and the matter did not proceed through any form of formal or informal process. Following the adverse treatment, the Worker commenced a period of certified sick leave.

Thereafter, on 5th November 2024, the Worker received an email from the Employer. This correspondence stated that the Worker had missed seven days in the previous three months without providing certification. In circumstances whereby the Employer formed the view that this did not align with their “standards and operational needs”, the Employer took the view that the Workers’ employment should be terminated. Said termination took effect immediately, with the Worker being paid until the end of the week.

By submission the Worker stated that he had been treated unfairly throughout his employment with the Employer. He stated that he was subjected to bullying and adverse behaviour in the course of his employment, and when he sought to raise the same internally, he was effectively ignored. The Worker further submitted that he was dismissed without any form of procedure or investigation being adopted by the Employer. In this respect, he submitted that the rationale for his dismissal was fundamentally flawed, in that the Employer erroneously stated that his absence was uncertified.

While the Employer did not issue a rebutting submission in relation to the Worker’s allegations, a representative attended the hearing on their behalf.

While the representative accepted that he could not challenge the Worker assertions on a factual basis, he did observe that the allegations regarding the inter-personal dispute were issued to the employment agency only.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker has raised two separate matters that arose in this short engagement with the Employer. Firstly, the Worker submitted that he made a report regarding an allegation of adverse behaviour on the part of one of his colleagues. From the correspondence opened by the Worker, it is apparent that is concerns were clearly and unambiguously outlined. the Worker also expressly requested that the matter be processed through the relevant internal procedures. While this correspondence was acknowledged by the recipient, it is apparent that no material progress was made in relation to the allegations, and the Worker’s complaints were essentially ignored.

While the foregoing clearly represents an unsatisfactory outcome for the Worker, it is apparent that these concerns were raised directly with the agency that placed him with the Employer, rather than with the Employer directly. In this respect, it is not clear that the present employer was aware of the issues at hand and consequently liability for the failure to address the same cannot attach to same. While it is apparent that the Worker has a valid concern regarding the handling of this complaint, this concern would be more appropriately addressed to the employment agency, as opposed to the present Employer.

Regarding the second head of the dispute, the Worker submitted that he was dismissed by way of email, without any form of meeting being convened or process being adopted. It is further noted that the Employer did not contest this position, with correspondence setting out the manner of the dismissal being opened by the Worker in the course of the proceedings. Needless to say, dismissal by way of email without any form of meeting being arranged or procedure being adopted represents a fundamental breach of the Worker’s natural and contractual rights. While the Worker’s employment may well have been subject to a probationary clause, the same does not dimmish his right to fair procedures or simple fairness in the manner by which his Employer terminated his employment. In addition to the same, it apparent that the Employer’s rationale for dismissal was based on a factually incorrect assumption regarding the status of the Worker’s sick leave.

Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, I recommend in favour of the Worker in relation to the present dispute.

Dismissal, Procedures, Agency Worker