ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00005106
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives |
| Peter Dunlea Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
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 – 00005106 and IR - SC - 00004807 | 25/07/2025 and 01/09/2025
|
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Date of Hearing: 15/01/2026
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.
After this dispute had been called to hearing the Complainant wrote to the WRC and requested that the dispute under this act instead be considered a complaint under the the Unfair Dismissals Act as their submission under this act was in error. I see no reason why such an application could not be made before the hearing and I do not think it would be reasonable to call the Respondent back for their submissions on this request and then potentially a further hearing day after this matter had already been heard on the basis of the dispute the Worker submitted.
The Worker had also submitted an employment rights complaint challenging the dismissal under separate legislation which requires employees to elect between that act and the Unfair Dismissals Act and that complaint had already been heard before this request was submitted. The Complainant did not address any of the issues that might arise in him running both claims in his request.
In all the circumstances I have rejected the application.
Background:
The Worker was dismissed during his probation period. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker submits his performance was extremely good and he was unfairly targeted by his colleagues. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer submits that the Worker’s performance was for the most part extremely good. However, he failed to communicate appropriately with the wider team by ordering them around and in some cases insulting them directly by calling them lazy or criticising their appearance. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Employer raised their concerns about the Worker’s engagement with the wider team on about four occasions including in a formal probation review meeting. At the time the Worker was dismissed two colleagues had submitted formal complaints against him and a third had indicated he would not work out his notice if it meant working with the Worker. The Worker had already attended an informal resolution meeting with two other Workers. The Worker was still under probation. The Employer followed fair procedures, in the context of a probationary dismissal in that they put him on notice of where he was falling short and gave him an opportunity to respond and improve. Ultimately they found that the Worker had failed to demonstrate his suitability for the role during his probationary period. I do not see how they breached any obligation to him in doing so. The Worker still does not accept that there was legitimate or fair negative feedback about him and as such if they had given him more time or specific feedback it is unlikely that it would have improved matters. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the Employer take no further action in relation to this dispute.
Dated: 06/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|