ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004791
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Administrator | A Cleaning Company |
Representatives | Self Represented | Peninsula Business Services |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00004791 | 24/07/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Date of Hearing: 02/06/2026
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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Employee is employed as an Administrator and submitted a dispute that she was not given fair treatment regarding participation in the ownership when the Business ownership changed hands. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Employee is employed as an Administrator since 2004 and has been on disability leave since August 2022. The Employee stated that she was not involved in the transfer of the shares of the Company and was not given the chance to be involved. She stated that there were 2 Directors and 4 Employees at the time of the transfer in February 2025 and she was the only person left out of participating in the transfer of the shares. The Employee remains the only employee. The Employee stated she was completely sidelined in respect of the new Undertaking formed and was not advised or involved in the re-structure. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer stated that the dispute concerned private share ownership and was not covered by the Industrial Relations Act. They stated that it was a Company Law issue and therefore was not a trade dispute. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I can only investigate a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 1946 which covers the definition of a “trade dispute” within the statutory meaning as set out under section 3, which states: “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 primary issue in this dispute relates to the ownership of shares within the company. The shares transferred from the two previous Owners to family members and one other staff member, who became the shareholders and Directors of the Company. I have considered the dispute between the parties and concluded that it is not a trade dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act as it relates to the ownership of the business and not to the terms or conditions of employment of the Worker and therefore I have no remit to propose a Recommendation to resolve the substantive issue between the Parties. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As this is not a Trade Dispute I have no statutory power to issue a Recommendation the substantive issue in dispute. |
Dated: 9th June 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Misconceived claims |