ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057032
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Erik Dunne | Department Of Education |
Representatives |
| Tríona Feeney |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. | CA-00069374-001 | 18/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment on 15th August 2024. At all relevant times the Complainant role was described as that of “clerical officer”. The Complainant remained in employment on the date of the hearing
On, 18th February 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that he has not received proper training for his role, and that he did not have sufficient management support. By response, the Respondent denied the allegations raised by the Complainant on a substantive basis. They further submitted that the complaints raised are not actionable under the impleaded legislation.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 4th November 2025. This hearing took place in Mullingar Courthouse, Co. Westmeath.
Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Given the nature of the complaints raised, no witness evidence was taken from either party. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At the outset of the hearing, on the request of the Adjudicator, the Complainant was asked to identify and particularise his complaint under the impleaded legislation. By response, the Complainant stated that his complaint was in the nature of a general grievance against the Respondent, and that he did not know which Act to select in order to pursue the same. Following a discussion between the parties, the Complainant undertook to utilise the Respondent’s internal grievance procedures, and the present matter was not pursued. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As set out above, the Respondent submitted that the complaint, as articulated by the Complainant, was not actionable under the impleaded legislation. Nonetheless, they undertook to engage with the Complainant regarding any internal grievance raised by him. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In circumstances whereby the complaint was not pursued by the Complainant, I find that the same is not well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 5th February 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Actionable complaint, grievance |