ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004902
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives |
|
|
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 - 00004902 | 08/08/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Date of Hearing: 16/04/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, the said Director General will then refer such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised.
The Adjudication Officer will, where appropriate, hear all relevant oral evidence/testimony of the parties and their witnesses and will also take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
A Trade Dispute in this context will include any dispute between an employer and a worker which is connected with the employment or the non-employment, or with the terms and conditions relating to and/or affecting the employment of any person.
It is noted that 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 recommendations, I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto. I note 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 bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC.
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not to be conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969. Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side. Written submissions can also be presented. The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 18th of August 2025. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 9th of February 2026 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out her complaint form. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant sought to establish that she was being bullied in the workplace. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 20th of January 2023 - and posted to the address provided. |
Conclusions:
Immediately prior to the hearing, the Complainant signalled that she would not be attending. The Complainant did not, therefore, provide an account of the facts which she says led to her issuing a complaint form against the Respondent under the Industrial Relations Acts.
|
Recommendation:
Pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 I am obliged to make such recommendations as might be appropriate on foot of the investigation conducted and based on my opinion on the merits of the dispute.
However, I am not in a position to make any recommendation in circumstances where I have heard no evidence. I make no recommendation.
Dated: 30-04-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|