ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004484
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives | Self-represented | The Hr Suite |
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 - 00004484 | 13/06/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
Date of Hearing: 13/11/2025
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.
My investigation of the dispute was conducted in private in accordance with section 13(8) of the 1969 Act.
Background:
The dispute concerns the Employer’s response to the Worker’s request for a contract of employment and treatment in the workplace. The Worker was issued with a contract of employment but did not agree to certain terms of the contract. The Worker subsequently resigned from employment. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker submitted that he and other workers experienced adverse treatment for requesting a contract of employment, including threats of being fired with immediate effect. The Worker outlined threats and adverse treatment by a supervisor on a continuous basis, which created a hostile environment in the workplace. A number of workers decided to make a complaint to the WRC. When a customer was visiting the workplace, the workers were told that if anyone said anything to the customer about the situation, the workers would be fired with immediate effect. The dispute concerned the treatment of the Worker in the workplace. The Worker resigned because of the situation and threats. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer was not aware of what the supervisor had said to the Worker and did not condone what the supervisor was alleged to have said. The Worker did not raise a grievance, but another worker raised an issue regarding the supervisor’s conduct towards staff. The Employer dealt with this when brought to its attention by the other worker, and a verbal warning issued to the supervisor. It was submitted on behalf of the Employer that the Worker had not raised an issue at local level and therefore the Employer did not have an opportunity to resolve any issue. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken account of all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I have very carefully considered the respective positions. In the first instance, I am not satisfied that the Worker raised a grievance at local level about the supervisor’s conduct or treatment of staff generally, or of the Worker. The information before me indicated a collective issue concerning the supervisor’s treatment of a cohort of workers. Other workers raised this issue with management, and the Employer addressed the issue with the supervisor. Crucially, the Worker submitted that the genesis of the adverse treatment was for having raised an employment right. I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to address employment law rights and protections within the industrial relations framework. In the circumstances and having regard to the fact that the Worker is no longer in the Employer’s employment, I see no basis for recommending concession of the Worker’s claim. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I am not satisfied of the merits of the dispute and, accordingly do not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.
Dated: 26-01-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
Key Words:
Industrial relations – dispute – local level dispute resolution – employment rights |