Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Director

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 - 00004676

08/07/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 19 September 2024 in a kitchen management role.

On 23 June 2025, the Employer informed the Worker at a meeting that her employment would terminate due to changes in the needs of the business. Following discussions in early July 2025 with the then Operations Manager, this was confirmed by email dated 7 July 2025, which stated that the Worker’s final working day would be 23 July 2025.

The Worker remained employed and was paid throughout the notice period until 23 July 2025, which constituted the effective date of termination of her employment.

The Worker referred the within dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter “the WRC”) on 8 July 2025 pursuant to the 1969 Act while she remained employed and serving her notice period.

The dispute concerns the circumstances surrounding the termination of her employment together with a number of workplace concerns raised by the Worker relating to training, staffing arrangements, working conditions and management practices.

The Worker made her own submissions and relied on the narrative contained in her WRC complaint form together with written submissions furnished in advance of the hearing. She outlined a number of concerns arising during her employment relating to training, workplace arrangements and management practices. She stated that she considered the termination of her employment to be unfair and referred the dispute to the WRC while still employed.

The Employer relied on written submissions furnished to the WRC in advance of the hearing. The Employer submitted that the decision to terminate the Worker’s employment arose solely from changing business needs. It stated that the decision was communicated on 23 June 2025 and that contractual notice was provided until 23 July 2025, during which time the Worker remained employed and paid in full.

The Employer contended that the concerns now relied upon by the Worker were not raised through its internal grievance procedures during her employment and that the referral occurred while the employment relationship remained ongoing. It submitted that the referral to the WRC represented a premature escalation of the dispute.

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

The evidence establishes that the Worker remained employed until 23 July 2025 and that the dispute was referred to the WRC on 8 July 2025 while she was serving her notice period. At the date of referral, therefore, the employment relationship between the parties remained extant.

The Worker’s submissions identify a range of workplace concerns arising during her employment. However, I am satisfied that these matters were not pursued through the Employer’s internal grievance procedures during the subsistence of the employment relationship. Furthermore, having referred the dispute prior to the termination of her employment, the Worker did not subsequently invoke internal procedures in respect of the manner in which her employment was terminated.

It is well established in industrial relations practice that workplace grievances should ordinarily be addressed through internal procedures before recourse is had to third-party intervention. In Gregory Geoghegan trading as TAPS v A Worker (INT1014), the Labour Court stated:

“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

While section 13 of the 1969 Act does not impose a strict statutory requirement that internal procedures be exhausted before a dispute may be referred, the availability and non-use of such procedures is a relevant consideration in determining whether it is appropriate for the WRC to intervene, particularly where the referral represents a premature escalation of matters that might properly have been addressed within the employment relationship.

In circumstances where the Worker referred the matter to the WRC while the employment relationship remained extant and without first availing of the Employer’s internal dispute resolution procedures in respect of either the workplace concerns identified or the manner of termination of her employment, I am satisfied that the referral constituted a premature escalation of the dispute and that it would not be appropriate for the WRC to intervene by way of a substantive recommendation.