ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00005235
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Employer | An Employer |
Representatives | Self-Represented | No Appearance |
Disputes:
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 - 00005235 | 29/09/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 | IR - SC - 00005232 | 26/09/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Date of Hearing: 18/03/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) (hereinafter “the 1969 Act”), following the referral of the disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present information relevant to the disputes.
As this is a trade dispute under section 13 of the 1969 Act, the hearing was conducted in private and the parties are not named. They are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”.
The Worker presented as a litigant in person and was assisted at the hearing by an interpreter.
Background:
The Worker was employed by the Employer from 1 May 2025 until his dismissal on 22 September 2025. He earned €€30,000 per annum. On 29 September 2025, having less than 12 months’ service, the Worker referred a dispute concerning his dismissal to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker submits that he was dismissed in circumstances which he contends were unfair. He states that throughout his employment he raised concerns regarding the absence of a written contract, the allocation of work, and the manner in which his working hours and locations were communicated. He submits that his working arrangements involved significant travel and that work was frequently assigned at short notice. The Worker further submits that on the date of his dismissal he was required, at short notice, to work at a location a considerable distance from his home and to continue working beyond his normal hours. He states that he explained that doing so would prevent him from returning home and that he could not remain beyond his normal hours. He submits that following this refusal he was dismissed without any prior warning, investigation or disciplinary process. The Worker contends that his dismissal arose in circumstances where he was seeking to assert basic employment rights and that the manner of his dismissal was unfair. He also outlined his efforts to mitigate his loss. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint. Having reviewed the file I am satisfied that the Employer was on notice of the claim against it and the hearing date, time and venue. I waited a reasonable time before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Employer. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions before me. Dispute Reference No.: IR - SC - 00005235 While the Worker did not have the requisite service to pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended), this does not negate an entitlement to fair procedures in the context of dismissal. The Employer did not attend the hearing and did not provide any evidence. I am satisfied that the Employer was properly notified of the hearing. In those circumstances, I have considered the Worker’s uncontested evidence. I have found in related complaints that the Employer failed to comply with its obligations under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, and that the Worker’s refusal to work in the circumstances described was protected by statute. The Worker’s evidence was clear and consistent. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept his account of the circumstances surrounding his dismissal. I am satisfied that the Worker was dismissed in circumstances where he had raised concerns regarding his working conditions and had refused to work in circumstances which were inconsistent with the Employer’s statutory obligations. I further find that the dismissal occurred in the absence of any apparent adherence to fair procedures. I am satisfied that the Worker made reasonable efforts to mitigate his loss and that he secured alternative employment approximately one month following his dismissal. Having regard to all of the circumstances, I consider that the Worker’s dispute is well founded. Dispute Reference No.: IR - SC - 00005232 This is a duplicate dispute and is addressed above under IR-SC-0005235. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Dispute Reference No.: IR - SC - 00005235
Having regard to all of the circumstances of this case and the evidence adduced, I consider that the Worker’s dismissal was unfair and that his dispute is well founded. I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker compensation in the amount of €2,500, having regard to the absence of fair procedures, in full and final settlement of this dispute.
Dispute Reference No.: IR - SC - 00005232
This is a duplicate dispute and is addressed above under IR-SC-0005235.
Dated: 23-04-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Key Words:
|
