ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003581
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A School Bus Driver | A Transport Business |
Representatives | Appeared in Person | Appeared In Person |
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 - 00003581 | 18/12/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Date of Hearing: 30/05/2025
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 by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
On 18 December 2024, the Worker, in representing his own Dispute submitted details of his receiving bullying and harassment in the workplace and sought an investigation under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Employer, who operates a transport business agreed to participate in the Investigation. Both Parties were invited to hearing scheduled for 30 May 2025. Both Parties were requested to set out the nature of the dispute and the response to that narrative. Both Parties presented to hearing as representatives in their own case. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker outlined that in the course of his 7 years a bus driver, he received unwarranted criticism from his employer when aspects of the bus malfunctioned. He submitted a written outline dated 14 May 2025 which caused him to reflect on his tenure and quite a number of malfunctions. The Worker has raised other matters within this employment in public hearing. He focused on an event which occurred in the yard at work on December 20, 2024, where he had received verbal abuse from a stranger which troubled him. He contended that he had spent a considerable amount of time attending garages without being paid. The Worker had not actioned a report or a grievance on this matter. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer operates a transport company and rejects the claims made by the Worker. He denied overt criticism of him and disputed his recollection of an event from December 20, 2024, as the worker had not reported the issue and had not mentioned this until February in the context of his WRC claims. The Employer highlighted the presence of a grievance procedure, which had remained unutilised by the worker. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I have listened carefully to both Parties.
It is not lost on me that the Worker is in active dispute with his employer on a number of levels under the umbrella of employment rights. I have not found merit in the Dispute raised as the essence of the matter centres on December 20, 2024, which post-dates the submission of the Dispute.
In trying to assess a dispute, I need to be clear just how the worker framed his complaint/ dispute at the time of the occurrence. Much of the Worker’s narrative pointed to satisfaction with his work.
I am satisfied that what transpired between the parties in this case were operational disagreements in staff relations, which do not amount to a Dispute for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act. The Worker has not exhausted internal procedures prior to referral to the WRC. He ought to have done so.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I have not found merit in this Dispute, which centres on operational disagreements at work, worthy of local resolution through dialogue.
Dated: 30/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Failure to exhaust internal procedures |