Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Truck Driver

A Contracting Company

Representatives

Self Represented

Owners Daughter

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Acts 1969 (as amened)

CA-00073751-001

25/7/2025

The Worker was employed from April 3rd  to July 18th 2025 as a Tractor/Truck Driver. His employment ceased in disputed circumstances. The Worker submitted  a dispute that his termination of employment was unreasonable and unjustified.

The Worker  was employed for about 4 months during the peak silage season as a Truck Driver.

His employment was terminated without notice and no cause as he was off work due to moving house and the Son of the Owner was aware of this. He only noticed his employment was ceased when he was on the Revenue website for another reason.

The Worker stated he got a new house and agreed time off with the Son of the Owner and that the Owner of the Company was aware he was taking time off. He advised he made a number of phone calls to members of the family after he found out his employment had been ceased on the Revenue website and his calls were not answered.

He stated he got no notice of the termination of his employment and he had no contract of employment.

The Daughter of the Owner attended the Hearing and advised she managed the administration of the business. She advised the Worker was hired for the season and that he missed many days and was off sick on occasion. She advised he worked 3 days in the week prior to not turning up for work. She advised her Father and Brother had no recollection of granting the Worker days off.

The Representative stated the Worker stopped work on July 10th 2025 and called for his holiday pay on July 25th 2025.  She advised her Brother, like her, was just an employee of the company and would not be authorised to grant time off, as suggested by the Worker. She understood the Worker went to Spain for a week and was gone from work for almost two weeks and they terminated his employment on Revenue as they understood he had left the employment.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  The working relationship between the Parties seems very casual and not governed by any terms of employment or clear understanding of who was authorised to approve time off or who the Worker reported to.  The Employer Representative was clear that the only person empowered to approve time of was her Father, the owner the Business.  The Worker gave the view that it was either the Son or Daughter that he had to liaise with regarding time off.  From my observation of the situation and explanation by the parties of the events two things are clear;  there were no written terms of employment stipulating who the Worker reported to and there was confusion about who approved time off. Also the Worker seemed to interpret the relationship with the Employer as some form of relationship where he had some control over when he worked.

The system of Industrial Relations in Ireland is based on a voluntary system of engagement.  I explained to the parties that under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, the Commission’s role is to investigate a trade dispute and issue a non‑binding Recommendation based on the equity and merits of the case, with the view that the Recommendation may be accepted by both Parties and the Recommendation is not based on strict legal rights.

The role of the WRC when investigating industrial relations disputes is to hear the parties and set out its opinion in the form of a Recommendation that can assist the parties to bring a resolution to matters in dispute.  At the time of the hearing the Worker was no longer in the employment of the Employer. Normally in these circumstances a Recommendation could be issued that the Worker accepts he has no current dispute with his previous Employer and the dispute is concluded. However, given there was no written terms of employment given to the Worker (as required by legislation) this may have contributed to the Workers confusion about who he reported to and who was able to authorise his time off. In order to bring a conclusion to the this dispute I recommend the Employer pay the Worker 500 Euros  in full and final settlement of the dispute.

I recommend in favour of the Worker and recommend the Employer pay the Worker 500 Euros in full and final settlement of the dispute.

Trade Dispute