Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ilavinio  Vicente

Apcoa Parking Ireland Limited

Representatives

Dominic Carthy

Peter Dunlea Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00072024-001

30/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00072027-001

30/05/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent the 3rd of May 2022 as a Parking Enforcement Officer, and he continues to be so employed. The claims the subject matter of this decision arose from the following series of events.

On the 4th of April 2024 the Complainant received a Written Warning. He did not appeal this warning which related to performance issues.

Further disciplinary issues arose leading to a disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr. Tom Kelly DPS Account Manager on the 24th of May 2024. Following this meeting the Complainant received another Written Warning dated the 10th of June 2024, in respect of: 

1. Un-due care and attention to [his] work

2. Continued uncertified leave

3. Failure to inform [his] supervisor in writing by email of [his] absences

I shall refer to disciplinary meeting and the warning which issued after it collectively as the “the May 2024 Disciplinary”

An internal appeal was initiated and pursued by the Complainant against this written warning in accordance with the Respondent’s disciplinary procedures. As part of the appeal process the Complainant submitted a three-page letter setting out detailed grounds of appeal. This letter was dated the 16th of June 2024. An appeal hearing took place on the 18th of June 2024 chaired by Ms. Chelsea Smith HR Manager following which the warning was upheld on the 26th of June 2024. I shall refer to this meeting and its outcome collectively as “the June 2024 Appeal”.

On the 10th of July 2024 the Complainant initiated a referral to the WRC pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, hereafter referred to as “the July 2024 IR Referral” taking issue with the process that had been conducted by the Respondent up to and including the June 2024 Appeal.

On the 8th of October 2024 the Complainant was notified of the following further disciplinary charges:

“Continued uncertified leave, seven instances from July in 2024, dates involved:

10/07/24, 15/07/24, 02/08/24, 21/08/24 to 22/08/24, 23/09/24, 01/10/24 and 03/10/24 to 04/10/24.

This follows after you received a written warning in relation to your absences on

10/06/24.”

These charges were put to the Complainant at a disciplinary hearing which took place on the 10th of October 2024 leading to a “Stage 3 Final Written Warning” dated the 17th of October 2024 citing as the basis of the warning: “Continued uncertified leave”. The letter went on to say:

You are expected to reach the required standard of conduct by 31/12/24, at which time the Company will review the situation. However, the Company expects to see significant improvement before that date.

Please note that if you fail to reach the required standard of conduct further action will be taken under the Company’s disciplinary policy which may lead to your dismissal from employment. This warning will cease to have effect after a period of six months, provided I am satisfied that your conduct has reached the required standard.

I shall refer to this process, i.e. the disciplinary meeting on the 10th of October and the Stage 3 Final Written Warning dated the 17th of October 2024 collectively as the “the October 2024 Disciplinary”. The Complainant delivered a written appeal against this Final Written warning on the 18th of October 2024.

On the 21st of October 2024 July 2024 IR Referral was listed before me for hearing. The Respondent’s representative was unavailable, and an adjournment was granted.

On the 4th of November 2024 a date for the appeal hearing was set by email from Mr. Paul Nolan, General Manager – Parking, to the Complainant. An Appeal Hearing in relation to the October 2024 Disciplinary was conducted by Mr. Nolan on the 10th of November 2024 leading to a final outcome dated the 18th of November 2024, which affirmed the Final Written Warning. This process will be referred to as “the November 2024 Appeal”.

On 21st of November 2024 the Complainant initiated a number of claims and IR referrals to the WRC. The phrase ‘rights-based claim’ is used to denote a claim invoking a legally enforceable remedy as distinct from a referral leading to a recommendation pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1969

1.            A Referral seeking a recommendation pursuant to Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. “The November 2024 IR Referral”. This referral was subsequently withdrawn as discussed below.

2.            Two ‘rights-based’ claims alleging penalisation pursuant to Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2015. These claims were duplicates and one was withdrawn as a result (see below).

3.            A ‘rights-based’ claim pursuant to the Employment Equality Act 1998 (as amended) alleging Harassment on the Ground of Race. This claim was withdrawn at the conclusion of the adjudication hearing (see below) 

4.            A ‘rights-based’ claim pursuant to the Employment Equality Act 1998 (as amended) alleging discrimination on two separate grounds: Race/Language and Disability. This claim was allocated a single CA reference number, but it involved two separate claims. Those claims are both dealt with under a single CA reference number (see below).

All the above were allocated to ADJ-00055512. A Case Management hearing took place on the 16th April 2025 and directions as to submissions were issued. 

A further claim was initiated by the Complainant in May 2025. Two claims were initiated which were duplicates. As a result, one was withdrawn and the other proceeded which was allocated WRC File Reference: ADJ-00059292. This is the claim which is the subject matter of the present decision

A further Case Management Hearing took place on the 24th of June 2025, and a hearing date was set for the 18th and 19th of September 2025 but was postponed by the WRC.

A full hearing in relation to all claims took place in Lansdowne House over four days on the 24th and 25th of November 2025 and the 16th and 17th of June 2026. The present decision deals with all current claims with the exception of ADJ-00059292, which is the subject matter of a separate decision.

The Complainant and his Representative gave evidence. On behalf of the Respondent evidence was given by Mr. David Dunne, The Complainant’s Line Manger, Mr. Tom Kelly, Contracts Manager, Ms. Chelsea Smith, HR Manager and Mr. Paul Nolan, General manager – Parking.

All witnesses gave evidence on affirmation.

The WRC Complaint Form submitted on the 30th of May 2025 contained the following submission:

Mr. Vicente submits this complaint under Section 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 on the basis that he has been and continues to be penalised by APCOA for raising health and safety concerns and for absences linked to work-related mental health issues arising from his duties as a Parking Enforcement Officer (PEO). Mr. Vicente has repeatedly informed the  company that his absences were a direct result of cumulative workplace trauma — including racial harassment, threats of physical violence, and sustained verbal abuse by members of the public. These are risks specifically identified in APCOA’s own Risk Assessment, which warns that such exposure may result in psychological harm and PTSD-type injury.. These actions are in direct contradiction to APCOA’s documented control measures, which include one-to-one welfare updates, access to post-incident counselling, and mental health policy supports. Most notably, despite repeated requests, APCOA has failed to refer Mr. Vicente for an Occupational Health assessment, even after formal disclosure of his mental health condition and the filing of a WRC complaint. This ongoing failure is a serious dereliction of the employer’s duty of care and constitutes further penalisation under Section 27 of the Act. Mr. Vicente respectfully requests that the WRC find that APCOA has contravened its statutory obligations by penalising him for disclosing workplace health and safety risks, and for failing to implement the protective measures outlined in its own safety management system.

The Complainant’s final written submissions were as follows:

Protected Act

The Complainant contends that he engaged in protected acts within the meaning of Section 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 by raising concerns regarding workplace health and safety risks arising from his employment as a Parking Enforcement Officer.

Those concerns included exposure to racial abuse, threats of violence, workplace hostility, stress, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and the impact those issues were having on his health, wellbeing, and attendance at work.

In particular, the Complainant relies upon a disclosure made on or around 16 June 2024, when he expressly asserted that the Respondent was failing to adequately address workplace risks and failing to discharge its obligations under Section 8 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

The Complainant further requested support measures, including referral to Occupational Health, to assess and manage the impact of those workplace conditions upon his health and wellbeing.

The Complainant relies upon repeated requests for intervention and support, made verbally and in writing, both directly and through his representative, including requests made on or around 21 October 2024 and 18 April 2025.

The Complainant contends that these disclosures and requests constituted protected acts for the purposes of Section 27 of the Act.

Detriment

The Complainant contends that, despite being placed on notice of workplace risks and the impact those risks were having on his health and wellbeing, the Respondent chose not to take reasonable and available steps to investigate, assess, manage, or mitigate those risks.

As a result, the Complainant remained exposed to the very workplace conditions about which he had repeatedly raised concerns, including racial abuse, threats of violence, workplace hostility, stress, anxiety, and sleep disturbance.

In particular, the Respondent:

•             Failed to conduct any meaningful review of the concerns raised;

•             Failed to refer the Complainant to Occupational Health;

•             Failed to implement welfare or support measures;

•             Failed to assess whether workplace risks were contributing to the Complainant's health concerns;

•             Failed to implement protective measures identified within its own risk assessment process; and

•             Allowed the Complainant to remain exposed to known workplace risks despite having identified mitigation measures designed to address those risks.

The Complainant contends that these decisions and omissions occurred despite the Respondent being aware of the concerns raised, the support measures being requested, and the existence of risk assessment controls available to reduce or manage the identified risks.

It is contended that the Respondent's failure to implement available mitigation measures was not a neutral omission but a conscious decision, capable of constituting detriment where it resulted in the Complainant remaining exposed to known workplace risks.

Causation

The Complainant contends that a direct causal connection exists between the protected acts and the detriment complained of.

The Complainant's position is that, after raising concerns regarding workplace health and safety risks and the Respondent's compliance with its statutory obligations, the Respondent failed to take reasonable and available steps to investigate those concerns, implement protective measures, or provide appropriate support.

Instead, the Complainant remained exposed to the workplace risks that had been identified and repeatedly brought to the Respondent's attention.

The Complainant contends that, but for having raised those health and safety concerns and sought intervention from the Respondent, he would not have been subjected to the detriment complained of.

The Respondent did not provide a submission dealing with the Complainant’s claim prior to the hearing. The Respondent’s representative did make a closing submission as follows:

It was queried how the Respondent could have engaged in relation to the health issues a=raised by the Complainant without being provided with any information. When the Complainant in correspondence raised health issues which he claimed were work related the Respondent did not treat him differently but instead asked the Complainant what the disability was but got no response.

It was accepted that the Respondent could have handled the disciplinary and appeal procedures better and that the Complainant should have been referred for an occupational health assessment but even so, it remained the case that no medical information was supplied by the Complainant until shortly before the present proceedings were commenced. The process of information provision to the respondent was exacerbated by obfuscation on the part of the Complainant who was apparently distrustful of the Respondent for reasons which were not given. Although the situation was imperfect the Respondent at all times has sought to engage with the Complainant and did not discriminate against him or mistreat him and in any event the Complainant has not proven any detriment to his position arising from the subject matter of his claim.

Relevant legislative Provisions

This claim is governed by Sections 27 and 28 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

27.—(1) In this section “penalisation” includes any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects, to his or her detriment, an employee with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), penalisation includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial

penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

(3) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee

for—

(a) acting in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions,

(b) performing any duty or exercising any right under the relevant statutory provisions,

(c) making a complaint or representation to his or her safety representative or employer or the Authority, as regards any matter relating to safety, health or welfare at work,

(d) giving evidence in proceedings in respect of the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions,

(e) being a safety representative or an employee designated under section 11 or appointed under section 18 to perform functions under this Act, or

(f) subject to subsection (6), in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he or she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, leaving (or proposing to leave) or, while the danger persisted, refusing to return to his or her place of work or any dangerous part of his or her place of work, or taking (or proposing to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or herself or other persons from the danger.

(4) The dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001, to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from penalisation as referred to in subsection (2)(a).

(5) If penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (3), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under this Part and under those Acts.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(f), in determining whether the steps which an employee took (or proposed to take) were appropriate, account shall be taken of all the circumstances and the means and advice available to him or her at the relevant time.

(7) Where the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal of an employee is that specified in subsection (3)(f), the employee shall not be regarded as unfairly dismissed if the employer shows that it was (or would have been) so negligent for the employee to take the steps which he or she took (or proposed to take) that a reasonable employer might have dismissed him or her for taking (or proposing to take) them.

Section 28 provides:

28. A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 27 shall do one or more of the following, namely—

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to take a specified course of action, or

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regardto all the circumstances.

To establish liability on the part of the Respondent the Complaint must establish

That the Complainant did one or more of things specified in Section 27 (3) which is commonly referred to as “the Protected Act”.

That the Complainant was penalised or threatened with penalisation as that concept is defined in Section 27 subsections (1) and (2) which concept is commonly known as “Detriment”.

That the detriment arose “for” doing any of the things listed in Section 27 (3) which concept is commonly referred to as “causation”.

Added to these requirements is the time limit in respect of any claims under these sections which is governed by Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act which, at subsection (6) and (8) (where relevant) provides:

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

…

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) …(but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

In summary therefore the Complainant must establish

1. That a protected Act occurred
2. That the Complainant was subjected to a detriment
3. That the detriment to which the Complainant was subjected was “for” making the protected Act
4. That the complaint was made within 6 months of the occurrence of 1-23 inclusive above

In the present claim the Complainant has not satisfied any of the above criteria.

Protected Act, Detriment and Causation

The Protected Act in this case is alleged to be that the Respondent failed adequately to address workplace risks to the Complainant including exposure to racial abuse, threats of violence, workplace hostility, stress, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and the impact those issues were having on his health, wellbeing, and attendance at work. Added to this allegation is the assertion that the Complainant further requested support measures, including referral to Occupational Health, to assess and manage the impact of those workplace conditions upon his health and wellbeing but that the Respondent failed to refer the Complainant to Occupational Health.

It was submitted that health and safety concerns were first raised by the Complainant in a letter to the Respondent dated the 16th of June 2024.The relevant text of that letter put those concerns as follows:

“The reasons for all absences were work related, due to mental health/work related

stress as a result of racial and verbal abuse from customers experienced on an ongoing

basis.”

The present claims were heard alongside several other claims involving the same parties as the present claim which were made in November 2024 and which invoked different legislation to that invoked  in the present claim. The decision in those cases, which were cross-referenced with the present claim is ADJ-00055512. In that decision I have considered the evidence which was available in relation to several issues but of relevance to the present case I will review two issues

1. What issues of abuse from customers of any sort were reported
2. What evidence was presented to the Respondent of work-related illness or injury

The Complainant’s evidence at the hearing was that he reported racial and other abuse many times to Mr. Dunne, his line manager or to Mr. Dunne’s deputy. The Respondent said that its records did not disclose any records of reports of abuse form customers by the Complainant other than those described by Mr. Dunne. The Complainant confirmed that he did so by email or text message as well as by telephone and that eventually he gave up reporting the issues. Mr. Dunne in his evidence only recalled two reports made by the Complainant. [The second of these occurred after the present claim was initiated and is thus not relevant.] The other incident which Mr. Dunne recalled being reported to him occurred in October 2024. It involved a group of youths at a particular location engaging in racist verbal abuse towards the Complainant. Mr. Dunne described how he dealt with the situation. He offered support to the Complainant including not deploying him to that location any further. He asked the Complainant if he wanted to report the matter to An Garda Siochana but the Complainant said that there was no point.

The Complainant was invited to provide any records of reports of any sort which he had made, and he was afforded several opportunities to do so. He did not adduce any written evidence of emails or text messages or any other records reflecting telephone reports of abuse incidents. Moreover, in his evidence he could not recall any specific dates or times when abuse had occurred and had been reported.

My conclusion on this evidence is that the Complainant has not adduced credible evidence to support the making of any more than one report of racial abuse to the Respondent which undermines his assertion that he reported multiple incidents over a protracted period of time.

This finding then brings into perspective the Complainant’s assertion that he raised multiple health and safety concerns throughout his employment. Leaving aside the dates of these alleged notifications - which is relevance to the cognisable period discussed below – what remains, in the absence of proof of multiple reports, is the bare assertion of the occurrences in the Complainant’s written communications. These communications, it should also be noted, were not made spontaneously but arose as a response to the disciplinary issues which the Respondent put to the Complainant from May to November of 2024. Although it is possible that an expression of general health and safety concerns is capable of constituting a protected act, I find that the Complainant’s evidence strongly indicated that the concerns arose from specific reported incidents and to the extent that no credible evidence was adduced to support this allegation the overall credibility of the protected act is questionable in the circumstances of this case.

As regards 2, above, the issue of the evidence of work-related illness or injury is also extensively discussed and analysed in the related decision in the claims the subject matter of the related decision. However, for the purposes of the present claim, it is necessary only to repeat that it was accepted as a fact that at no stage either prior to or during the cognisable period applicable to this claim did the Complainant ever submit medical certification reciting work-related stress or injury. It is also the case that when asked to discuss the reasons for his uncertified sick days in the period from May to the 10th of November 2024 the Complainant declined to discuss the reasons verbally at any of the disciplinary or appeal meetings which occurred during this period.

Insofar as the evidence and submissions contend or suggest that there exists a stand-alone right to be referred for occupational health assessment on request, there is no such right in the legislation or otherwise. To be sure where a medical certificate clearly indicating a work-related illness or injury is submitted by an employee to an employer, the latter is at that point, on formal notice of a potentially work-related injury and the possibility then arises that several legislative provisions are potentially engaged including the reasonable accommodation and discrimination provisions of Employment Equality Act and potentially the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2015 but even so those provisions are not engaged unless the Employer behaves in such a manner as to attract liability under those provisions and in accordance with the individual wordings of each of them which vary depending on the circumstances and which precise provision is under review. In the present case where no medical certification specifying the injury is provided but is only flagged in general terms by the Complainant or his representative, neither of whom are medically qualified, there is no basis for asserting that the Respondent was obliged to make an occupational health referral and that being so the Complainant’s request that he be referred in the absence of medical certification from his own doctor cannot constitute a protected act.

It follows from the above that if a request without medical certification did not, in the circumstances of this case constitute a protected act, the Respondent’s failure cannot constitute a detriment as long as the alleged work-related injury remained uncertified. Placing this in the sequence of events there was evidence that the Complainant made a specific request to be referred to occupational health in October 2024 (outside the cognisable period) and again on the 18th of April 2024 (within the cognisable period) but as he did not provide medical certification of the medical illness necessitating or potentially necessitating such a referral on those occasions then such requests cannot constitute protected acts nor can the failure to refer to occupational health can be deemed penalisation.

At the hearing I was informed that a medical certificate certifying work-related illness was provided by the Complainant on the 2nd of April 2025 and that the Complainant was referred for an occupational health assessment thereafter. I did not review the outcome of this occupational health referral because I was informed that further proceedings in relation to this issue are already in being. Even though the medical certificate was submitted before the date on which the Complaint was presented it was not submitted that any delay between its presentation and the occupational health assessment being carried out resulted in any additional detriment to the Complainant beyond the more general allegation that the Respondent exposed the Complainant to risk which is dealt with separately below. 

Causation and Detriment and Time Limits

The Disciplinary Charges as Penalisation and Detriment

It is not clear from the submissions or the evidence whether the Complainant maintains that the disciplinary charges which were put to him and resulted in a series of warnings and appeals against those warning constituted penalisation for having raised health and safety issues. On the assumption that a ruling on this issue is sought I have considered the issue firstly from the point of view of time limits.

As provided by Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 the primary time-period within which a claim must be made is 6 months from the date of the alleged contravention of the Act to which the complaint relates. In this case the Complainant was presented on the 30th of May 2025 which means that the period captured by the complainant covers the 6-month period immediately preceding its presentation which period (which will be referred to as “the Cognisable Period”) runs from the 30th of November 2024 to the 30th of May 2025.

The Cognisable Period is important since it excludes any alleged breaches which allegedly occurred prior to that date. The impugned series of disciplinary hearings and appeals therefrom commenced in May of 2024 and ended with the imposition of a Final Written Warning on the 18th of October 2024 all of which pre-dates the commencement of the cognisable period on the 30th of November 2024.

The Complainant’s representative in oral submissions identified the fact that the Complainant first raised health and safety concerns in a letter to the Respondent dated the 16th of June 2024. However, that letter cannot be relied upon as it pre-dates the cognisable period. In addition, noting the Complainant’s submissions where it is alleged that repeated requests were made for “intervention and support verbally and in writing, on or around 21 October 2024”, this date too pre-dates the cognisable period. Although it was alleged that the penalisation claimed in these proceedings was continuous and insofar as this advanced as a reasonable ground to extend the time there is no evidence of reasonable grounds for not initiating the present claim in October 2024 and it is noteworthy that in November 2024 all of the claims which are the subject matter of the cross-referenced decision was initiated at that time. Finally, insofar as act of penalisation alleged took the form of disciplinary proceedings the fact is that no further disciplinary issues arose within the cognisable period.

Aside from this finding it is also of note that causation in relation to the disciplinary charges has not been established since it is clear that the disciplinary charges preceded any expression of concern for health and safety and thus cannot be alleged to have been caused by or having been initiated “for” making any protected act.

In conclusion I find that the disciplinary charges did not constitute an act of penalisation.

Whether the Respondent penalised the Complainant by exposing him to continued risk

The general thrust of this allegation was that the Respondent failed to take reasonable and available steps to investigate the Health and Safety concerns raised by the Complainant and to implement protective measures or provide appropriate support. Instead, the Complainant remained exposed to the workplace risks that had been identified and repeatedly brought to the Respondent's attention.

In essence the allegation is that by not complying with its statutory duty the Respondent is penalising the Complainant by permitting him to work in an unsafe environment. The difficulty with this argument is that it requires proof that the environment is unsafe and the only support for this argument is the Complainant’s testimony such as it was. No expert evidence was offered. In any event it is clear that such an enquiry would not generally be appropriate to an enquiry into alleged penalisation but would more usually be entrusted to an expert inspector with statutory powers of inspection and the powers to issue enforcement notices and to pursue criminal sanctions against employers in breach of the health and safety code. Alternatively, where a breach leads to an injury, whilst it would be arguable that the injury could in theory be deemed an act of penalisation the more appropriate route for such claim would be by way of personal injury civil proceedings. If the Complainant’s contention were taken to its extreme, then it would follow that any employee who expressed a concern regarding health and safety and who contended that the employer is in breach of any statutory obligation which it has failed to remedy could argue that the employer has penalised him/her by omission even where no other detriment has taken place. I am satisfied that this was not the legislative intent behind Sections 27 and 28.

For all of the foregoing reasons I find that the Complainant was not penalised as alleged by the Respondent on the basis of the alleged failure of the latter to comply with its statutory duties to him in the circumstances of this case.

It follows that the claim is not well-founded.

CA-00072024-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 – Complaint Withdrawn – Duplicate of CA-00072027-001

CA-00072027-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 –– Complaint not well-founded

Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005