ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001127

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Worker	An Employer

Representatives

Kevin Byrne, Brannigan and Matthews

John Keenan JRK Business Services

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 - 00001127	27/02/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	IR - SC - 00001128	27/02/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Date of Hearing: 17/06/2025

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)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 by me and to present to me any information relevant to the disputes.

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Summary of Workers Case:

The worker took a complaint regarding disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal and another relating to bullying and harassment procedures.

The worker submitted that that he was working at a specific warehouse and had an altercation with the one of the clients’ managers. Arising from this the employer was called to a meeting and told that the worker had to apologise to the manager, although he was assured that this was not a disciplinary issue. He submitted that 16 co-workers all signed a letter saying that they were having het same problems with that same manager. The worker was told to take 2 days off and then apologise with something like “I’m sorry but I was having a bad day”. He submitted that ee couldn’t do so. He submitted that all the employer cared about was it contract with the client.

The worker was subsequently told that he couldn’t go to that warehouse anymore and was moved from the midlands to Dublin.. He stated that he raised no grievance with his employer.

He also stated that he did not make a complainant under the bullying and harassment procedures as he thought what’s the point.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The employer submitted that the worker was not subject to any disciplinary procedures nor had a disciplinary charge laid against him. It also submitted that he did not make a complaint under its bullying and harassment procedures. The employer pointed out that the worker wrote a grievance letter to its client and investigation of that letter was outside its control.

Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The worker disputed the use of the disciplinary procedures but confirmed that no disciplinary charge was ever brought against him. He did not mention any specific disciplinary rule that he was disputing.

The worker disputed the bullying and harassment procedures but confirmed that he did not avail himself of those procedures.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that where a worker feels aggrieved regarding bullying and harassment, he should utilise any available procedures that the employer has in place for dealing with such matters.

Dated: 12TH of February 2026.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Key Words:

Industrial Relations Act – disciplinary procedures – no disciplinary action taken against worker – bullying and harassment – worker did not avail of existing procedures.