Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Caretaker on CE Scheme

A Community Association

Representatives

Appeared in Person

Chairman

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 - 00004056

18/02/2025

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

IR - SC - 00004057

18/02/2025

On 18 February 2025, The Worker referred two disputes to the WRC.

1 He had complaints regarding disciplinary sanction up to and including dismissal.

2 bullying and harassment procedures

He sought an investigation.

On April 2, 2025, the WRC placed the named employer on notice of the disputes and sought confirmation on whether the Employer objected or not to an investigation.

Trade Dispute Investigation

In so far as the request for an investigation by a Workplace Relations Commission Adjudicator under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, into the above trade dispute is concerned, please note that under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, any party has the right to object to an investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer. If you object to an Adjudication Officer hearing this complaint, the Complainant has the following options available to him/her for dealing with this/these trade disputes:

1. The referral of the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, or
2. The referral of the dispute to the Conciliation Service of the Workplace Relations Commission. This option is voluntary and subject to the agreement of the other party to participate in the process.

Please indicate whether you wish to object to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer by completing the enclosed form and returning it to Information and Customer Services, Workplace Relations Commission, O’Brien Road, Carlow R93 E92O within 21 days of the date of this letter.

Failure to reply to this enquiry form within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute will proceed for a hearing on the earliest date.

On 24 April,2025, the Employer responded to the notification of claims, but did not engage on the request for input on the Industrial Relations claims.

Dear Sir/Madam,

 I refer to your correspondence dated 09 April 2025 in relation to employment claims alleged by XXX I hold the position of Chairperson of the Hall Committee within X Community Association and have been instructed to respond to you on its behalf.

Having reviewed our employment file and records going back five years, I confirm that no person by the name of X has been employed by X Community Association over the past five years. Please investigate and confirm that this claim has been served on us by mistake and that no further action need be taken by us in relation thereto. I await hearing from you Thank you for dealing with same

On 17 June 2025, the WRC issued the following correspondence to the Worker, which placed his claims before Adjudication for want of objection from the named Employer.

Regarding Specific Complaints IR-SC-00004056 and IR-SC-00004057

I refer to previous correspondence in relation to the above trade disputes.

In accordance with Section 36 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, the Commission wrote to the Respondent in this case to request if he/she objected to an investigation of these disputes by an Adjudicator Officer.

I now wish to advise that no communication has been received from the Respondent in response to this request within the period specified. In the circumstances, the Respondent is deemed to have consented to an investigation by an Adjudicator under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and the disputes now will proceed to be considered on that basis accordingly.

The claims came to hearing on 19 December 2025.

The Worker outlined his disputes with this named employer and rejected any submission from the named Employer which disputed his employment status.

He told the hearing that he had been a long-term caretaker at the Community Association and neighbouring facility and had experienced a deterioration in staff relations since a key figure had retired.

He outlined that he had been forced out of the facility that he had given ten years of his life to on a community employment scheme.

He sought his claims of poor treatment up to and including dismissal be investigated

IR-SC-00004056 The Worker contended that he had been expelled from his workplace in an unfair manner

IR-SC-00004057

The Worker contended that he had been bullied and harassed but had not submitted a formal complaint outside of his engagement in a conflict resolution exercise.

The Employer came to hearing reliant on the letter they shared with the WRC dated 24 April 2025.

This stated that they had never employed the worker, who was simply hosted at the Community Association, which was not a corporate body.

The Employer contended that the worker was fully aware that his link to the named employer was not real as he had entered into successive contracts of employment, which placed him as an employee on an alternative community grouping, which ahd corporate status.

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

This is a complex case. It has been surrounded by copious amounts of documentation.

The Worker presented in pronounced conflict with this host organisation and they with him.

However, to progress, I must be satisfied that a Trade Dispute is in being here as set down in the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

the expression “trade dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and workers or between workers and workers connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of employment, of any person and includes any such dispute or difference between employers and workers where the employment has ceased,

The named employer has not helped the process by holding strong convictions surrounding not being the employer, yet side stepped the invitation to object to the requested investigation.

The Worker was steadfast that he was employed by the named Employer.

I have not established that the worker as presented is an employee / worker as defined by the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Consequently, I am not empowered to proceed to an investigation under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations act, 1969, as requested.

I will add that the Employer as named in this Recommendation is not the workers employer.

The Parties would be best served in working under the umbrella of the Community Employment Scheme, a triangular arrangement, which placed all parties in their particular zone.

I cannot progress in my investigation. There is no merit in this dispute.

Mistaken on employers’ identity