Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Store

Representatives

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 - 00004590

26/06/2025

The Worker referred the within dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) on the 26th June 2025 wherein he set out a number of complaints and confirmed that at the date of referral he was involved in an investigation arranged by the Employer to determine whether or not his complaints would be upheld.

The Worker attended the hearing and made his own case. He relied on the narrative as outlined in the WRC Complaint Form, a timeline of events set out in an email furnished to the WRC on the 7th January 2026 and supplemental documentary evidence in support of his case. No objection was raised to the Worker reading from the narrative contained in that email in the making of his case.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries in order to clarify the factual matrix and in fulfilment of my statutory functions.

The Employer attended the hearing and was represented by its Director. No documentation was furnished to the WRC by the Employer. The Employer’s Director referred to the Worker’s documentation and made oral submissions on behalf of the Employer.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries in order to clarify the factual matrix and in fulfilment of my statutory functions.

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

This dispute was referred to the WRC on 26th June 2025 pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Adjudication Officer’s jurisdiction under that Act falls to be assessed by reference to the circumstances obtaining at the date of referral.

The narrative accompanying the referral set out in detail the Worker’s grievance and referred to the fact that he was involved in an investigation arranged by the Employer to see whether or not his complaints would be upheld.

The investigation report was not furnished to the WRC by either party until the 3rd January 2026. Upon receipt of the report, it became clear that the Worker set out his complaints in writing in an email dated the 28th May 2025 and that the investigation process had only just commenced at the time the within dispute was referred to the WRC. The investigation did not conclude until the 22nd October 2025.

In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer the Worker stated that he had a telephone conversation with the external investigator in the middle of June 2025, that his first engagement with the investigator took place on the 25th June 2025, and that the referral of the within dispute to the WRC was made the following day whilst the investigation was ongoing.

I note that when the case came on for hearing the investigation had concluded. However, the subsequent completion of an internal process cannot retrospectively cure a defect in jurisdiction arising from a premature referral. Jurisdiction under the Act cannot be conferred by events occurring after the date of referral.

In the course of making concluding submissions the Worker clarified that his grievance was in fact the two year delay on the part of the Employer in addressing his complaints which resulted in a loss of trust and confidence in the Director of the Employer company. He stated that he believed the Director had not taken any of his complaints seriously when they were first raised with him and the Worker felt that he had only been asked to reduce his complaints to writing in order to facilitate disciplinary action against a manager. He believed that his complaints should have been addressed separately but stated that he accepted that his complaints were something that should be used in any disciplinary proceedings against the manager. He took issue with the timing of the asking of him to put his complaints in writing not the fact of being asked to put them in writing. The Worker accepted that he had not raised this issue through the employer’s grievance procedure, nor had it been examined as part of the external investigation and that the hearing before the WRC was the first occasion on which this grievance had been articulated. I am satisfied that this grievance was not the subject of the original referral and had not been processed internally prior to referral.

It is well established that before referring a grievance to the WRC, an employee must exhaust the internal procedures available at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan trading as TAPS v. A Worker (INT1014), the Labour Court held:

“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

The Act does not confer jurisdiction on an Adjudication Officer to intervene in, supervise, or review an internal investigation process that was ongoing at the time a dispute was referred nor can an Adjudication Officer insert themselves into the procedural process.

Taking into consideration the documentation relied upon at the hearing and the oral submissions of the parties I find that:

• the within dispute was referred at a time when the Employer’s internal dispute resolution procedures had not been exhausted;
• the Worker was, in substance, seeking intervention in or review of an investigation process that was ongoing at the time of referral;
• the grievance ultimately articulated by the Worker during the WRC hearing had not been raised internally and was not within the scope of the dispute as referred; and
• the subsequent completion of the investigation does not retrospectively confer jurisdiction on the WRC.

To hold otherwise would permit parties to bypass internal procedures by referring disputes prematurely and relying on subsequent events to validate the referral, a result not contemplated by the Act.

In light of the above, I conclude that as the internal procedures have not been exhausted, the dispute as referred is not properly before the WRC.