Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Scaffolder

A Scaffold Company and Home Builder

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Chris Ryan A&L Goodbody LLP for and Fintan Kelliher

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 - 00005308

09/10/2025

The dispute concerns some alleged and  appalling behaviour on the part of an employee of the Respondent named in the original complaint form. The first named Respondent is an Irish homebuilder and residential property developer and sets out that they are not the employer and that the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear the case referred against them.

For convenience and line with the anonymity of the referral under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, I  will refer to them here as CH.

The second named Respondent  is Private Company, and I will refer to them here as LS. LS accepted that they were the employer and consented to the change in Respondent name. LS raised no objection to the matter being heard under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The worker reports several incidents involving the site foreman on a construction project in Dublin. He states that during a scaffold‑striking operation where no exclusion zone was in place, the foreman shouted at him and told him he was “no good.”

In later incidents, the foreman allegedly had his team empty a skip into the worker’s compound after the worker said he would clean an area later in the day. The worker says he has video evidence of this.

He also reports that the foreman threw out a stillage of scaffolding and threw a wooden skid in his direction.

Preliminary Objection

CH raised an objection prior to the hearing and retained that position at the hearing:

The Respondent submits that it is not, and has never been, the Worker’s  employer. According to the Worker’s  own complaint form, the Worker is employed by an entirely separate entity (LS), an independent contractor that provides services to the Respondent. The Respondent states that no contract of employment has ever existed between itself and the Complainant.

The Worker’s  employer has, CH notes, already contacted the Worker  directly and requested that the complaint be amended to name the correct Employer. The Respondent further states that the employer is aware that it has written to the Commission on this matter.

On that basis, CH  argues that the complaint has been directed against the incorrect party. It therefore requests that it be removed from the proceedings and that the case record be updated to reflect the correct employer identified by the Complainant in the complaint form.

Substantive Submission of LS

LS raised no objection to the hearing of the matter and set out that they had attempted to investigate the complaint in line with their procedures, but the Worker refused to engage. This was on the basis that the offensive person was not an employee of LS but of CH.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I set out the parties, my role in the proceeding and the implications of a recommendation rather than a decision.

I explained to the parties that under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, the Commission’s role is to investigate a trade dispute and issue a non‑binding recommendation based on the equity and merits of the case, rather than strict legal rights.

1. Preliminary Objection – CH

It is clear and undisputed that no employment relationship ever existed between the Worker and CH. In the absence of such a relationship, no trade dispute, as defined under the Industrial Relations Acts, can arise between them. Accordingly, CH was incorrectly named as a Respondent, and the Commission has no jurisdiction to investigate a dispute between the Worker and CH.

2. The Complaint Against LS

While LS is the Worker’s actual employer, it is evident that:

·         the Worker does not assert a substantive dispute with LS;

·         the behaviour complained of relates entirely to an employee of CH;

·         the Worker chose not to engage with LS’s internal investigation.

Where the Worker has not engaged with or exhausted the internal dispute‑resolution procedures of his employer, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to proceed with an investigation under section 13.

3. Other Observations

It is clear that the Worker was deeply offended by the alleged conduct of the CH employee. In such circumstances, the appropriate course of action for the Worker—given the impact on his working environment—was to engage with his employer LS’s procedures. LS, in turn, had the responsibility to investigate the matter in line with its health and safety obligations.

Nothing prevents the Worker from raising his concerns directly with CH, and I have no doubt that CH would wish to address any unacceptable behaviour by its staff. However, such a complaint does not constitute a trade dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

For the reasons outlined above, the Commission finds that it has no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

 Incorrect Respondent,  No Employment Relationship,Refusal to Engage, Third‑Party Employee Misconduct