Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Electrician

An Electrical Installations Company

Representatives

Dylan Loughlin Copacetic Business Solutions

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 - 00004045

31/03/2025

The complainant says that he felt harassed on a number of occasions. Personal movements were being tracked and monitored in breach of GDPR and in the absence of a Tracker Policy being provided by the employer.

The  complainant  feel he  was penalised due to the fact that he  stood up for himself when necessary and had to fight for his entitlements, including back pay that was owed.

This led to a very stressful working  environment. The  complainant  previously advised the employer of the stressful environment, and he  actually resigned from his role as Supervisor as a result of the unnecessary pressures.

His performance and productivity was consistently high as evidenced in his, and his teams performances.

The respondent maintains that reasonable steps were taken at all times to ensure a respectful and professional working environment and this complaint is denied in full.

No formal grievance was pursued by the complainant during his employment in respect of the matters now alleged.

The respondent expressly withholds consent to an investigation under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and objects to the WRC conducting a non-binding investigation.

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

This complaint accompanied a number of employment rights complaints which have been dealt with separately. He is no longer employed by the respondent.

In his submission to the hearing, the complainant was vague and uncertain about what had specifically given rise to this complaint under the Industrial Relations Act.

He referred to a disciplinary hearing in July 2024 which the respondent stated was unrelated as it concerned timekeeping issues. The respondent also questioned allegations about his movements being observed by co-workers, and defended its use of tracker devices on its vehicles.

Fatally for the complaint, at no time did the complainant raise any of these issues through the workplace grievance machinery and this is an absolute prerequisite for any investigation by the WRC under this Act.

It might also be said that an employer is obliged to object to a hearing under this Act within the specified period, and failure to do so will result in the dispute being heard if the earlier conditions referred to are met.

So while an Adjudicator may investigate how effectively and fairly any such complaint has been managed by an employer, the absence of any complaint will essentially estop any further involvement by the WRC.

The WRC cannot, for reasons that are both practical and also a matter of jurisdiction following Decisions of the Labour Court on this point, be a tribunal of first instance for workplace grievances.