ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00005297
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Printing Operative | Printing Company |
Representatives | Self | Kelvin Hyland, Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00005297 | 08/10/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 08/04/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
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. The parties 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and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
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 also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific referral. 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 the issues giving rise to this dispute.
The Worker’s complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 08/10/2025. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 22/10/2025 and notified of their right under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer within 21 days. The Employer was informed that failure to reply within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute proceeded to hearing.
I am satisfied that no objection to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer was received by the Workplace Relations Commission from the Employer.
The Worker attended the hearing accompanied by two support persons. The Employer was represented by Peninsula Business Services and a Company Director.
Background:
The worker commenced employment with the employer on 03/05/2003. He was paid €668.00 gross weekly and worked 39 hours per week. He submitted his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 08/10/2025 in relation to bullying by his manager. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker states that he was accused of “smoking weed” by his manager and he was most upset by this accusation. The manager also stated that he could not have someone who was “stoned” working on a print press. He submits that he never smoked such a substance or ever had any involvement with illegal drugs and as the shutters in the building were open at that time the smell could be coming in from outside. He has worked for the employer for 22 years and strongly objects to the accusation. He also submits that he had a previous negative interaction with this manager some years previously. He went on sick leave due to the enormous stress and pressure this allegation had on him and remains on certified sick leave. The worker is alleging that this manager has displayed bullying behaviour to him. He is unhappy that the employer has not dealt with this and all he wanted was to continue working until his retirement in early 2027. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submits that the worker has not raised a formal grievance in relation to the incident. He has been on certified sick leave and not returned to work. The employer submits that their position is that once the worker is deemed medically fit to engage they will have the matter investigated by an independent investigator. The employer also submits that since the worker was on sick leave they have consolidated its policies in an Employee Handbook and this clarifies their grievance procedure. A copy was given to the worker at the hearing. The employer submits that they have not been given an opportunity to investigate the matter and are willing to do so once the worker is deemed medically fit to participate in such an investigation. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Worker confirmed at the hearing that he did not utilise the internal procedures in all these disputes as he had no faith in the Employer’s process. This is a fundamental flaw in the Workers case and in such circumstances a Worker cannot use or substitute the WRC instead of the agreed process. The Worker is under an obligation to exhaust such procedures before submitting a dispute to the WRC. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As the worker is still an employee I am making the following recommendations which were explained to the worker at the hearing:
- He should submit a formal complaint to the employer as soon as possible.
- He should obtain confirmation from his medical practitioner that he is fit to participate in a workplace investigation and provide a copy of this to the employer.
- The employer to engage an independent investigator to conduct an investigation into the worker’s grievance in a timely manner.
Dated: 17th April 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Internal grievance procedure. |