Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Bartender

Bar

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. Peter Dunlea, Peninsula Business Services

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 - 00003721

30/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003722

30/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003720

30/01/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 31st May 2024. At all relevant times, the Worker was engaged as a “bartender”. The contract of employment was terminated on 4th January 2025, with the nature of the termination forming part of the dispute between the parties.

On 30th January 2025, the Complainant referred the present disputes to the Commission. Following the Employer’s failure to object to the same within the statutory timeframe, the same proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 20th May 2025. This hearing held in person at the Commission’s Sligo offices. These disputes were heard in parallel to a number of other matters raised under justiciable legislation.

Following the reading of their respective submissions of the parties, the Adjudicator outlined the position below to the paties.

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

As set out above, the present dispute was listed for hearing alongside numerous other complaints in relation to justiciable legislation. The subject matter of such matters was considered at length and has resulted in a number of decisions being issued to the parties in respect of the same.

In the matter of Nua Healthcare Services Limited -v- A Worker LCR22758, the Labour Court held as follows,

“…noting in particular that the worker has elected to have the facts of the matter addressed in law, the Court concludes that there can be no value from a trade dispute resolution standpoint in the Court purporting to address the underlying facts which have given rise to this trade dispute as an industrial relations matter.”

More recently, in the matter of A Worker -v- Grant Engineering LCR22984, the Court held that,

“…it is inappropriate to conflate matters which form the substance of a series of justiciable complaints under law with matters described as a trade dispute in the voluntarist framework.”

In this regard it is noted that the purpose of the Commission in regard to disputes referred under the Industrial Relations Acts is to offer a practical solution to a dispute, within a voluntarist framework, in an effort to resolve the issues between the parties. Regarding the present dispute, it is clear that the parties are entirely and irrevocably at odds with each other, the employment relationship has ended and the parties are now in litigation. In such circumstances, it is difficult to envision any practical, workable solution to the trade dispute that may result from this investigation. In such circumstances, I find that it would be inappropriate to issue any recommendation in favour of either party to the dispute.

Trade Dispute, Parallel Proceedings, Justiciable Matters