ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004223
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Company |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. | IR - SC - 00004223 | 01/05/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Date of Hearing: 11/03/2026
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 and to present any information relevant to the dispute. The hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Carlow.
Background:
The worker commenced employment for the respondent in January 2025. The worker was dismissed on 15th April 2025. The employer denies that it was an unfair dismissal. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker had irregular hours and was paid €600 gross per fortnight. If she worked extra days, she was informed these would be paid in cash. She told her employer she did not want to be paid in cash. She said that a colleague of the same nationality was told by the Director to dismiss her. She said that she does not know the reason she was dismissed as she was not given one. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that the worker came for a trial on 10th January 2025. Everything went well and she was taken on. The employer said that the worker was only fifty days in employment and on probation. The Director was concerned that her private affairs were encroaching into the workplace through repeated phone calls. The Director said the worker repeatedly raised her voice to other staff in front of customers, and there were customer complaints. As the conduct was affecting the business, the Director decided to terminate the contract. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The employer outlined several instances of the workers conduct with staff and customers. The worker stated that she did not know why she was dismissed. The worker was not afforded fair procedures in that there were no records of her being notified of complaints or being advised that her job was in jeopardy prior to the meeting when she was dismissed. Although a disciplinary procedure was not in place, S.I No 146/2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures sets out the basic procedures that should be followed. These procedures were not complied with. This automatically deems the dismissal to be unfair on procedural grounds.
I recommend the employer pay the worker compensation of €2,000.00 in full and final settlement of the dispute. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a Statutory Instrument and is not wages or arrears of wages. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend the employer pay the worker compensation of €2,000.00 in full and final settlement of the dispute. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a Statutory Instrument and is not wages or arrears of wages.
Dated: 19th March 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Disciplinary procedures |