ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004326
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Company |
Representatives | Self-represented | IBEC |
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 - 00004326 | 20/05/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Date of Hearing: 11/02/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any information relevant to the dispute. The hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Carlow. Both parties made detailed submissions in advance of the hearing.
Background:
The worker is employed as a General Operative with the company since February 2023. He attended an interview at the end of 2023. He claims that he has not been granted the appropriate job title and rate of pay as promised at the interview. The employer denies that a new job title was promised to the worker. The employer accepts a pay increase was promised and was paid although contests the increase now sought by the worker. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker said he was told at the interview that he would be paid a higher rate once he was trained in the new role. He claims that this particular increase has not been applied nor has he been given the job title, as promised. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer’s position is that he was paid the appropriate rate subsequent to the interview. Arising from a separate competency review he was offered a pay increase and new job title from July 2025. This was not paid as the worker did not sign an amendment to the contract dated 6th August 2025. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions and representations made at the hearing. The hearing mainly focussed on the reasons why the amended contract document remained unsigned, and the effects of the amendments on the existing contract. The issues in dispute relate to the job title and application date of the pay increase.
Job Title As there was no document produced by either side of a change in job title, I am reluctant to make a recommendation on this issue. The complainant signed an amendment to his contract in April 2024 and August 2024 confirming his job title. Events have also moved on in that the competency review in 2025 has now resulted in a proposed new job title.
Date of Pay Increase This has been a protracted issue with the dispute on the rate of pay going back to early 2024. The parties need to move on and return to a normal working relationship with agreed terms of employment.
I recommend that the ‘Amendment to Contract of Employment document dated 6th August 2025’ be adjusted by the employer to apply the pay increase from 21st June 2025 and that the worker sign the revised amendment, in full and final settlement of the dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the ‘Amendment to Contract of Employment document dated 6th August 2025’ be adjusted by the employer to apply the pay increase from 21st June 2025 and that the worker sign the revised amendment, in full and final settlement of the dispute.
Dated: 12-02-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
New contract |