Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Case Manager

A Charity

Representatives

  No Appearance at hearing or participation in the claim by the Worker

 Senior People Manager for the Charity

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004453

10 June 2025

On June 10, 2025, the Worker, a Case Manager and unrepresented party send a short worded claim to the WRC.

On 9 July 2025, details of this Dispute were shared with the named employer. On that day, the employer was requested to consider whether they had any objection to the WRC holding an investigation of the claim within 21 days.?

On 11 August 2025, the Employer agreed to the proposed investigation.

Two days later, this development was shared with the worker.

On 17 February 2026, both parties were invited to attend an in person hearing on the remote platform.

The WRC request for submissions went unheard.

On 25 February 2026, as the assigned Adjudicator, I wrote to both parties seeking completion of their written chronological submissions.

“I am making this request to both worker and employer to assist me in my investigation, please. I also require any contract of employment /staff handbook, grievance procedure or any detail of effort made to resolve this issue within the dispute’s resolution framework, please “

Nothing followed.

On March 6, 2026, the parties were requested to email address and phone number of each participant at hearing.

On March 10, 2026, the Employer confirmed a three-person delegation.

The Employer filed a written submission.

There was no response from the worker, who confirmed receipt of email correspondence, but did not respond.

On March 11, 2026, I tried to reach out again to the Worker in the interest of a fair hearing.

I write in preparation for hearing on Friday, March 13 at 12.30 pm on the Remote platform.

I would be grateful if you could furnish your written submission in this case, please.

In particular, I am seeking a record of any grievance you lodged during your employment, please.

You will have received a copy of the Employers submission.

I am concerned that we have not received any materials from you in the run up to hearing.

If you have decided not to proceed with your case , I would ask that you notify pru@workplacerelations.ie without delay as the Employer side has confirmed their delegation ready to attend on Friday .

I look forward to meeting the parties at hearing.

Yours sincerely,

Adjudicator

There was no response.

I proceeded to hearing and allowed a 15-minute window in time to allow for the Workers attendance.

I am grateful to the case officer who rang the Worker when she did not attend for hearing. I am informed the call went through to message. The worker did not attend the hearing or give any reason for this.

Given the efforts made to invite the worker to hearing  and encourage a ventilation of the Dispute, I must consider her nonappearance at hearing as unreasonable.

On 10 June 2026, the Worker outlined that she had been employed as a case manager from 6 January 2025 to 3 June 2025 on her complaint form.

The Worker added that she was speaking in her own case and had been dismissed on 10 June 2025, the date of the complaint / dispute before the WRC.

The Worker also stated that she was on sick leave for two weeks.

She requested to be returned to the position through re -engagement.

She gave the reason for her dismissal as “meeting chair” which I did not understand.

Her statement indicated that she had an issue with a colleague’s outburst and a return to the workplace office.

The Worker attached a grievance outcome dated 8 May 2025.

The Employer works in the Charity sector and comes to the case denying that the worker had been dismissed.

The Employer accepted the worker commenced employment in January 2025 on 17.5 hrs a week.

The Employer responded to some concerns raised by the worker regarding a disagreement with a colleague in March 2025.

Informal efforts at resolution were unsuccessful. An internal investigation followed.

This concluded by means of an investigation report on May 8, 2025.

The parties were given an elaborate set of findings and next steps.

The worker appealed on 21 May 2025. This concluded on 16 July 2025.

The Worker attended for appeal on 2 July 2025 with a manager from a different service. The outcome was unchanged.

On Friday 11 July 2025 in the process of medical certificate submission, the worker gave two weeks’ notice “for my end of employment “

She thanked the service for their kindness and support and wished the charity well.

I asked the Charity at hearing if the worker raised the topic of her resignation with anyone during her passage through the appeal? I was informed that she had not.

The Employer had not heard from the worker since the appeal concluded.

The Employer gave their narrative at hearing as a considered account of seeking to help the worker in her stated difficulty in March 2025.

She had resigned during sick leave dated 11 July and did not return to work her notice.

The Employer disputed any claim for dismissal.

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

My role in this matter is set down in Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

Rights Commissioner must be read as Adjudicator.

Rights commissioners.

13.— (1) ….

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled—

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and

(ii) notify the Court of the recommendation.

(b) A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute—

(i) if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute, or

(ii) if a party to the dispute notifies the commissioner in writing that he objects to the dispute being investigated by a rights commissioner.

The Worker has not been present in this claim or at hearing.

It appears to me that she has misunderstood her employee status.

On her complaint form dated 10 June 2025, she recorded that she had been dismissed. She did not avail of the repeated opportunities offered to her  to share the narrative further.

From the Employers point of view, they denied dismissal and prepared a chronological account of a formal dispute’s resolution mechanism at the Charity, where a pathway for moving forward was shared, but rejected by the worker.

The Worker resigned prior to completion of the appeal she initiated. I have no reason for this illogical action.

The Employer pressed on to completion of this appeal process, which was shared with the worker.

It was important for them to be heard on the lack of dismissal in this case. I accept that narrative.

The most unusual part of this case is that it was open to worker to come forward and outline her narrative at WRC or withdraw her case. She chose neither path nor stayed away.

I am disappointed by this, given the positive measures to invite the worker to tell her story.

I am also mindful of the high level of preparedness for hearing demonstrated by the Employer in this case.

The IR Act 1969 is a great pathway for charting course in dispute resolution. However, it requires two parties to be present and visible at submission and hearing stage.

I conclude that the worker was properly notified of hearing and chose not to attend the hearing.

She did not attend to introduce me to her dispute. I heard the Employers response to the claim and noticed the stated commitment to follow their own procedures to solve the workers stated difficulties.

The worker resigned her position on 11 July 2025, some 4 weeks after she lodged her complaint of dismissal with WRC on 10 June 2025. The employment was live at the moment of the complaint.

 The worker failed to take note that she was navigating an internal grievance appeal as she came to WRC prematurely. She was obliged to exhaust all internal processes prior to referral of her case to the WRC. It is of note that the worker was in her probationary period.

There was no dismissal.

There is no merit in this Dispute.

Premature referral of workplace dispute. Contested dismissal within 6 months of employment.