ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00006322
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives |
| James Dempsey 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 - 00006322 | 07/02/2026 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Date of Hearing: 18/08/2026
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).
The Worker initially brought this complaint against a named Worker who was a member of management. While the Industrial Relations Acts of 1969 and 1990 do provide for the possibility of trade disputes between workers being brought under Section 13, I made clear that I did not believe there was any appropriate recommendation I could make to resolve such a dispute in this case.
The parties agreed that the name of the Employer could be amended to reflect the actual employer.
Background:
The Worker formerly worked for the Employer as a security guard. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker has referred a trade dispute related to his being asked to review cctv footage which a member of management objected to and subsequently raised concerns about directly with the Worker outside the workplace. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer is objecting to the trade dispute being investigated. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
After the dispute was amended to reflect the Employer’s name, Mr Dempsey for the Employer made clear that the Employer was objecting to the trade dispute being investigated.
Section 13 of the 1969 Act provides that
(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled— (i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and (ii) notify the Court of the recommendation.
(b) A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute— (i) if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute, or (ii) if a party to the dispute notifies the commissioner in writing that he objects to the dispute being investigated by a rights commissioner.
Section 36 of the 1990 Act provides that
(1) An objection under section 13 (3) (b) (ii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, by a party to a trade dispute to an investigation of the dispute by a rights commissioner shall be of no effect unless it is notified in writing to the commissioner within three weeks after notice of the reference of the dispute to the commissioner has been sent by post to that party.
While the objection raised by the Employer does not fit within process set out above, I note that they only became the Employer for the purposes of this recommendation in the hearing and as such they were entitled to further written notification, which they could then object to in writing. I believe such an exercise would simply be fruitless administrative burden on the parties and the WRC and I am issuing a recommendation reflecting that. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend no specific course of action.
Dated: 20th August 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|