ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ON DISPUTE UNDER INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003472
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Fabricator | An Engineering Company |
Representatives | Un Represented | Company Managers |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act,1969 | IR - SC - 00003472 | 25/11/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Date of Hearing: 03/07/2025 & 14/01/2026
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.
Background:
The issue in Dispute concerns an allegation of Unfair Dismissal by a Steel Welder/fabricator against a Steel Fabrication Company. The Employment began on the 3rd January 2024 and ended on the 21st of November 2024.
The rate of pay was stated by the Worker to have been a gross of €800 for a 40-hour week.
1: Summary of Worker’s case
The Worker was not represented but gave a detailed Oral testimony in support of the details on his complaint form. Copy Pages from a Handwritten diary were also submitted.
He maintained that he had worked very satisfactorily until the arrival of Mr PR as a Foreman in mid-2024. Prior to Mr PR, the Worker had worked well with the former foreman, Mr MF.
Mr PR had bullied him, had constantly “roared and shouted” at him and in general made his working life very unsatisfactory. Various very derogative insulting names had been used against him There was no allowance made for his trade experience, and he was expected to carry out all tasks without any professional experienced comment or input. Issues had arisen with access to the Workshop Storeroom. He was not able to access the Stores when he had required necessary tools or parts.
As regards the allegation that he was “slowing down” this was completely in error. He had assisted less experienced Staff in the correct welding techniques for Apartment balcony structures. This was of major benefit to the Employer as incorrect steel frames would be rejected by customers on site.
Since mid-year he had begun keeping a handwritten diary to document the activities of Mr PR. Allegations were made regarding prescribed medications that Parties may have been using.
In November 2024 he had raised this issue with the Owner/Manager. In response he had been sacked on the spot without any proper HR or Employment Procedures. He was never given any warnings, official or even verbal that his job was in jeopardy.
2: Summary of Employer case.
The Employer was not represented but gave a detailed Oral Testimony supported by a written submission. The Manager responsible for HR & Financial matters was the chief spokesperson.
It was pointed out that the case was being heard under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 and not the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The Worker did not have a completed 12-month service required to qualify.
On first appointment the Worker was placed on probation. This was extended in May 2024.
The Employer noticed a deteriorating work situation with the Worker. He displayed a very negative attitude towards Company Managers and in particular towards Supervisors. He resented H & S inspections by Supervisors and sought to have colleagues slow down in their output as it was “only to the benefit of Managers”. Issues arose with his timekeeping and taking tea breaks immediately on arriving late. He was advised regarding where he was, against the rules, parking his car on a neighbour’s forecourt.
On the 21st of November 2024 a meeting regarding his behaviour took place with Management. Matters got very heated with multiple accusations of bullying against Supervisors. After the conclusion of the meeting there was a physical interaction -aggressive pushing - with a Supervisor. The Worker made a number of physical threats against the Supervisor and the company generally.
Following the dismissal the Worker returned accompanied by two other male individuals, some days later, to the Workplace. This was against all rules and became quite aggressive.
As regards the Bullying allegations the Employer wrote to the Worker on the 29th November 2024 inviting him to supply all necessary details so that a full investigation could take place. No reply was ever received to this correspondence.
A number of very aggressive /threatening e Mails and Posts had been received from the Worker post the Dismissal.
In final summary the Worker had been dismissed for poor performance on the job coupled with a very negative and aggressive attitude to Supervisors and Managers.
3: Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
3:1 Legal discussion and consideration of evidence.
It has to be noted that this case is under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 which allows an Adjudicator to make a non-binding Recommendation as opposed to a legally enforceable Decision under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977. The Worker did not have 12 months employment service to qualify under the 1977 Act.
There are a number of Legal points involved in this case. The first issue was the fact that the Worker was still, according to the Employer, on Probation. This was unusual for a Worker with almost 11 months service. None the less Legal precedents from the Court of Appeal in O’Donovan v Over-C Technology Ltd [2021} IECA 37 have established that a Dismissal during a Probationary Period for solely performance Reasons does not normally require detailed HR Procedures such as warnings etc. However, if there are Behavioural/Disciplinary issues outside of simple Non-Performance then full procedures must be used.
From the evidence here both Written and from the Oral Testimony of the parties it was clear that there were potential serious disciplinary issues for the Worker as regards his interactions with the Foreman/Supervisor Mr PR. The performance of the Worker at the 21st November meeting was also not in any way helpful to his case and the post dismissal incidents only added to the issue. This makes the case more than a simple performance /output issues.
Accordingly, SI 146 of 2000 – Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures is applicable to this case. In plain English this is the normal HR routines of Investigations & Warnings, Right to have Representation and an Independent Appeal Stage post the Dismissal. None of these appeared to have been evident here. It is worth noting that the Employer did write on the 29th November inviting the Worker to supply information to allow a Bullying investigation take place. No reply was ever received.
3:2 Adjudication Summary The fact is that the Worker was Unfairly Dismissed without proper HR procedures, but this was mitigated to a very large extent by his own actions and responses to Management particularly at the meeting of the 21st November 2024. Any redress to be Recommended has to reflect this fact. |
4: Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA: 00067695-001
It is Recommended that as a technical Unfair Dismissal (Lack of Procedures) was found a redress amount of €1,000 be paid to the Worker but reduced by 50% in lieu of his own contribution to the Dismissal.
The final amount Recommended is accordingly, €500.
Dated: 15/05/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal, Probation. |