ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00005246
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | The Worker | The Employer |
Representatives | N/A | Mr. John Barry, Management Support Services. |
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 - 00005246 | 30/09/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Date of Hearing: 19/06/2026
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.
As this is a trade dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the Hearing took place in private at the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) and the Parties are not named.
The Worker was present at the Hearing. A WRC-appointed interpreter attended for the Worker.
Two Regional Managers and a HR Representative attended for the Employer, which was also represented.
Employer’s Correct Name:
During the Hearing, the Employer’s correct name was noted, as agreed.
Background:
The Worker worked as a Cleaning Operative for the Employer from November 2024 until October 2025. Most recently, the Worker earned approximately €14.10 per hour and worked 40 hours per week. The Worker outlined in her Complaint Form that her dispute concerned “disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal”. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker provided detailed written and oral submissions. The Worker outlined that she was subject to a disciplinary procedure due to alleged unauthorised absence from work. The Worker submitted that she was not absent from work on certain days, for example when two such days fell on a Saturday and Sunday. The Worker further submitted that she was unnecessarily required to provide a medical certificate following an illness. The Worker took issue with how her Manager spoke to her and stated that false accusations were made against her. Finally, the Worker stated that the Disciplinary Report contained false statements. The Worker outlined that she had a copy of the Employer’s Handbook which details the Employer’s Grievance Procedure. The Worker stated that she did file an appeal. The Worker stated that she felt that nothing was being resolved and that she felt weak. She therefore decided to file her complaint with the WRC. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer provided detailed written and oral submissions. The Employer outlined that while there was an investigation into the Worker’s absences, the matter did not progress to the Disciplinary Stage. The Employer outlined that the matter was handled fairly and that the Worker was provided with all documentation and that she had a translator to assist her. The Employer further outlined that as the matter did not progress to the Disciplinary Stage, the Worker was not subject to any sanctions. Finally, the Employer outlined that the Worker did not exhaust its Grievance Procedure before submitting her complaint to the WRC. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Parties.
It is well established that, before submitting a grievance about any matter to the WRC, an employee must exhaust the internal procedures at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan t/a 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 disputeprocedures have been bypassed.”
The Worker confirmed that she had a copy of the Employer’s Handbook which outlined the Employer’s Grievance Procedure. On the information before me, I am satisfied that the Worker did not exhaust the internal grievance procedure before filing her complaint with the WRC.
As it has not been shown that the internal procedures have been exhausted, I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, the Worker’s dispute is without merit. Therefore, I recommend that the Employer take no further action. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As it has not been shown that the internal procedures have been exhausted, I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, the Worker’s dispute is without merit. Therefore, I recommend that the Employer take no further action.
Dated: 14th July 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act 1969, Exhaust Internal Procedures. |