ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004216

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Worker	An Employer

Representatives

Andrea Montanelli Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Dispute:

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 - 00004216	30/04/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Date of Hearing: 26/01/2026

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, the said Director General will then refer such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised.

The Adjudication Officer will, where appropriate, hear all relevant oral evidence/testimony of the parties and their witnesses and will also take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.

A Trade Dispute in this context will include any dispute between an employer and a worker which is connected with the employment or the non-employment, or with the terms and conditions relating to and/or affecting the employment of any person.

I have confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the said trade dispute as described in Section 13.

Where applicable, this investigation may involve an assessment of whether workplace processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practise on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000). It is noted that this document sets out the minimum standards that might be expected to operate in a given workplace. It sets out best-practice principles for handling workplace grievances and disciplinary matters in a fair, consistent, and transparent way.

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

These disputes are heard in camera and the recommendation made by me will be anonymised,

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 30th of April 2025.

In the interests of fairness, the WRC acquiesced to an application made for the provision of an interpreter. It is noted that the interpreter is provided to assist the Adjudicator to conduct an orderly and fair hearing of the complaints being made by the Complainant in his preferred language. The interpreter did not guide or assist the Complainant. The Interpreter simply interpreted what was being said by the Complainant. I perceived there to be no difficulty in communication between the Interpreter and he Complainant.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant was provided with as much time as he needed to make his case. The Complainant’s workplace relations complaint form read:

In December 2024, I did a paid trial period at the restaurant, but I saw a lot of disrespect from chef SCS. I have 6 years of experience in the kitchen and I had to listen from her several times that she called me an idiot, or that I needed to use my head, because I was doing something stupid, as she said. I'm a professional. I know what I was doing.

After that period, I waited for my work visa to start working, but the visa was for another restaurant, but there was no vacancy at the other one, so I had to work with her again, and things got much worse. The insults increased. The aggression started to be more effective, even aggressively altering the dishes I was preparing. Making jokes to the other cooks about me. The information I got from my coworkers is that she does this to people she doesn't like, and she doesn't fire them, she harasses you until you give up on staying. I saw other cooks working the way I do, in front of her, but I was the only one who was called out. When I left my session, I saw her looking through all my things, trying to find something to complain about.

15 hours. I had to beg the restaurant owner to get at least 25 hours so I could pay my rent.

I was not provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case however he did provide me (together with the Respondent) with a letter of resignation in the course of the hearing. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Respondent was represented by Peninsula Business Services Ireland. The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submissions dated 22nd of January 2026. Whilst the submission was somewhat tardy, I am satisfied that the Complainant was not prejudiced by moving forward with the hearing. I have additionally heard from one of the Directors of the company who seemed to have some interaction with the Complainant in the course of the employment. The Respondent witness was questioned by the Complainant.

The Respondent rejects that there has been a workplace dispute raised before this matter was presented to the WRC.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Conclusions:

There is an obligation on the parties to an IR dispute to demonstrate that they have engaged locally in a good faith process of resolution before presenting any matter to the WRC. The WRC should be seen as the last port of call. Not the first. There is, therefore, an expectation that parties will have exhausted the workplace mechanisms for bringing a grievance or a complaint.

I am of the view that the obligation to address a workplace dispute internally before escalating it to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is based on several important legal, procedural, and practical reasons.

The contractual relationship between the Employer and the Employee will usually have internal grievance procedures embedded into the contract of employment. The procedures adopted by a workplace are presumed to be optimum for the particular workplace and therefore should be utilised. Resolving a dispute internally saves on time and resources for both the employer and the employee and should reduce the cost of legal or other representation and administrative overhead. It is hoped that resolving issues in-house helps to maintain ongoing working relationships.

Using the internal procedures encourages employer responsibility and accountability in the workplace. The employer is held accountable for maintaining fair procedures, whilst the employee is expected to engage constructively. Grievance procedures and other internal mechanisms thrive on problem-solving and dialogue.

Going through internal steps creates a paper trail of efforts made to resolve the issue and helps the WRC or the Adjudicator to assess the reasonableness of both parties’ actions.

Any subsequent oversight which the WRC may have is designed to be complementary to the internal mechanisms and not a substitute for them. The WRC may decline jurisdiction if it is not satisfied that an employee has attempted to resolve issues locally and/or has given no evidence of using the grievance procedure.

I find therefore that I am persuaded by the Respondent’s argument that the Complainant cannot expect the WRC to conduct a full investigation into a workplace grievance or an allegation of bullying and/or harassment which has not been previously brought to the attention of the Employer.

I am satisfied that both the Contract of employment and the Employee Handbook reference the Grievance Procedure to be adopted in the event that any workplace issues arise.

I should add that I do not necessarily dismiss the allegations made by the Complainant concerning his interaction with the head chef. In his evidence the Complainant suggested that issues had arisen while he was working his trial period and not necessarily when he was taken on full time some two months later. In fact, the records showed that the Complainant and SCS were only rostered to work together for two periods each of five hours duration. The complainant could not identify a single issue which arose on those two occasions. The Complainant agrees that he did not raise a Grievance or other issue in the workplace.

The Complainant resigned his employment some four to five weeks after commencing same. There had been discussions around the lack of hours being given to the Complainant. Nothing in the resignation tends to suggest that there had been an issue in the workaplace.

His letter of resignation read as follows:

Please accept this letter as formal notification of my resignation from my position as Chef de Partie at J Restaurant.

My last day of employment will be April 25th.

I appreciate the opportunity to have worked at J Restaurant.

Please let me know if you need any additional information from me during this transition period.

Regards,

Recommendation:

It is noted that Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendations, I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto.

Having already articulated my opinion on the merits of the within dispute, I am making no recommendation in consideration of the fact that the Complainant failed to trigger any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised before bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC.

Dated: 24/02/2026