ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003971

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	*A Worker*	*An Employer*

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms Niamh Daly IBEC

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 - 00003971	19/03/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Date of Hearing: 09/04/2026

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. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.

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. They 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and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.

The Worker attended the hearing and represented himself. The Worker was accompanied at hearing by his father. The Employer was represented by IBEC and the Employee Relations Manager together with a Director attended on behalf of 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 explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing in order to gain an understanding of the full extent of this dispute.

Where applicable this investigation may involve an assessment of whether processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. 146 of 2000.

I have confirmed that the Worker herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the dispute as set out in section 13. It is noted 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 recommendation/s I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the position of the parties thereto.

It is noted 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 referring the dispute to the WRC.

At the end of hearing both parties confirmed they were satisfied they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all relevant information.

Background:

This matter came before the WRC dated 19/03/2025 as a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The aforesaid dispute was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 09/04/2026.

The specific complaint details on the WRC complaint form set out Industrial Relations Issues Type: Bullying and Harassment Procedures.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 26/11/2018.

Summary of Workers Case:

As set out in the WRC complaint form:

As I am not willing to comply with out of contract hours changes I am receiving excessive emails now demanding I return to work or face disciplinary actions despite my GP stating the expected work changes are too stressful me for (working 11 days in a row once every 4 weeks) and I am unfit to work such a demanding schedule as it will be a massive detriment to my mental health. I am capable of working as I am contracted 5 days in 7 but my employer will make no concession on the 11 day rota despite knowing it is extremely stressful for me and is only applying more and more stress to me. My employer is blatantly breaking their own internal dignity at work policy on bullying, this was brought up in their internal grievance procedure but was never dealt with. I am not being told despite my doctors sick certs if I do not attend work this week I will not be paid anymore and face disciplinary action.

The Worker at hearing states he did submit a grievance but it wasn’t about bullying; it was about the new rota after there was a deal done with the union and he isn’t a member of the union and he doesn’t agree with the deal.

The Worker submits the investigation of his grievance was fine – it was cordial and grand but he felt like he wasn’t being listened to.

The Workers submits this dispute today is really about the work arrangements agreed with the union; he isn’t a member and he doesn’t agree with them.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

There was a grievance raised by the Worker under the grievance procedure which was investigated by the Employer in line with the grievance procedure details as set under Grievance Procedure Human Resources. The Employer submits the grievance was conducted in a manner fully compliant with S.I. 146 of 2000.

The Employer submits the new rota was agreed with the CWU as part of an overall collective agreement and that changes to the rota were only one part of the agreement which also includes a pay rise of 3%.

Conclusions:

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

I note that, as the matters about which the Worker was aggrieved were addressed by him locally in the first instance, the meeting on 2 October 2024 was held in line with Stage 2 of the Grievance Procedure. On 08 November 2024 the Worker was notified of the outcome of his grievance and advised of his right of appeal which he did.

I note a virtual appeal hearing was conducted on 03 December 2024 the outcome of which was notified to the Worker on 20 December 2024. I note at hearing the Worker had no complaints about the manner in which the grievance was investigated apart from that he felt that they didn’t listen to him and his appeal was not upheld.

There were no procedural defects in the process highlighted by the Worker or any suggestions that it lacked fairness apart from the fact that it clearly did not deliver the outcome sought by the Worker.

I have nothing before me that suggests the grievance procedure in and of itself did not conform to the generally accepted standards of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in such cases in compliance with the general principles set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. 146 of 2000.

The consideration of a trade dispute and any recommendation thereto is informed and guided by previous decisions of the Labour Court as they apply to a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Act.

I am mindful of the Labour Court decision of Bord Gais Eireann v A Worker [AD1377] which sets out my remit in relation to disputes regarding internal investigations as follows:

“It is not the function of the Court to form a view on the merits of complaints giving rise to those investigations nor can it substitute its views for those of the investigators appointed in either case. Rather, the role of the Court is to establish if the procedures used by the Company conformed to the generally accepted standard of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in cases such as these.”

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Act 1969 provides as follows:

2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.” [emphasis added]

For completeness, I note the issues the Worker wishes to raise in this dispute relate to the rotas introduced by the Employer following on from a collective agreement with the relevant trade union and with which he is not in agreement. The concept of a collective agreement by its very nature denotes a body of workers or is apprehended or involves ‘workers plural’.

In these circumstances I have no jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

For the reasons outlined above I do not recommend for the Worker.

Dated: 20th April 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Key Words:

Collective agreement; body of workers;