ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003985
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Care Worker | A Healthcare Agency |
Representatives |
| Mary Seery Kearney Law Library |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | IR - SC - 00003985 | 21-03-2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Date of Hearing: 17/02/2026
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 matter was heard by way of remote hearings on 11 December 2025 and 17 February 2026, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The first hearing was adjourned due to difficulties relating to notification to the employer.
Background:
The worker commenced employment with the employer in April 2024. Her employment ended in February 2025. A complaint form was received by the WRC in March 2025. |
Summary of Workers Case:
In her complaint form the worker submits that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment. She does not have at least 12 months employment. She submits that she was dismissed of her employment because she did not sign a new contract when she was out of work due to illness. The worker told the hearing that she was out sick for periods when there lots of things happening at work in relation to new owners taking over. She did not attend a particular meeting about what was happening. There was a lot of fear and uncertainty at the time; she was not sure who she could trust. When she received emails, she tried to contact the employer but she was unsuccessful. She, along with others, had concerns when their original employer, was no longer involved. The worker stated that she did not get work after the end of her employment with the employer because she had a shoulder injury.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer representative that this matter revolves around a transfer of undertakings. The employer followed all the rules in relation to the transfer, including consulting with the workers being transferred. However, a small group of workers were disgruntled because of an issue at Director level. Following a period of consultation, workers, including this worker, were sent a letter stating that if they did not transfer their employment would be terminated. The employer put forward that the worker was given a three-month notification period when she was not sick and eight confirmed communications to her home address however, she did not attend any of the meetings arranged by the employer. Of 120 workers, 98 transferred across. However, this worker did not transfer nor did she engage with the with the process. According to the employer, she effectively resigned. The employer believes they did everything they should have done in terms of engaging with the workers.
|
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I find the employer did all it was meant to do and more in the circumstances. The worker chose not to engage in the transfer process and made her decision not to transfer. I find this was not an unfair dismissal.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I have no recommendation to make.
Dated: 15-04-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Transfer of undertakings. |