Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Channel Development Lead

A Technology Company

Representatives

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 - 00004519

17/06/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004520

17/06/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004521

17/06/2025

The worker has worked for the employer since 2016.

This recommendation covers all three complaints as listed below.

The worker provided a detailed written submission.

By way of background the worker put forward that since he started working for the employer the vast majority of his time he worked remotely from home, he only attended the company offices 2-3 times a month, mainly for meetings or perhaps full days to meet vendors or clients.

His line manager at the time he joined allowed him great independence in his work.  His line manager changed in 2024.

The worker has targets to reach every month and he is paid on commission basis.  The features of his target and how they are calculated has become problematic.  His independence and the trust given to him to deal with 3rd parties has become problematic.

The worker believes that the origin of this dispute lies in events surrounding an argument he had with a director of the company relating to a large purchase order and how it was handled operationally internally with order management. The worker believes that since that disagreement the management have orchestrated a slow and manipulative campaign to force him to leave or to bring about disciplinary procedures to terminate his employment.  In January 2024, the company employed another sales person and the worker contends that this was done in an attempt to remove the cost of his role in the company.

The worker asserts that the campaign to force him out consists of a number of elements including;

·         Unilateral changes to his terms and conditions of employment

·         Discriminatory treatment

·         Unilateral and unfair changes to his sales targets

·         Attempts to take attributed sales from him and assign unfair costs against sales to reduce the margin on his sales

·         Reducing his autonomy to make decisions around his clients and sales opportunities

·         Changes to his remuneration and payment method

·         Failure to respond to discrepancies that he has highlighted.

The worker submits that he has tried to engage with management on these matters but the outcome was always negative and favoured management’s viewpoint. Regarding the changes to his terms and conditions the worker suggested that mediation might be useful, however, he believes the company acted in bad faith in relation to this, and initiated a process with an unobjective mediator being appointed.

The worker submits that he has been threatened with disciplinary action and this is why he submitted his complaint to the WRC.

The worker is open to entering a mediation process with an independent mediator.

 At the hearing the worker stated that the issue of being able to work remotely is very important to him and he would not have taken up the role if he was not going to be able work remotely.

He denied he is childminding when at home, rather he is working.

He is seeking a solution.

The employer denies that the worker works 95% of his time from home, as put forward by the worker, that at all times he had a dedicated workstation in the company’s office. The requirement to attend the office has been a minimum of two days per week for all staff with core hours of 10.00 to 16.00 hrs, with Wednesdays as a core day plus one other day. This requirement was put in place in early 2023.

The employer submits that at a meeting with the worker in October 2024 the worker said he could not comply with the above as he had childcare issues.  He was advised by management that all staff were required to attend the office for a minimum of Wednesday and one other day.  The worker was allowed additional time to comply.

When the worker did not comply, a meeting was arranged.  At the meeting he said he had taken legal advice and asked what the implications would be of not complying. He was advised that it would become a disciplinary matter.

A meeting was arranged for the worker and a HR Advisor for April 2025. At this meeting the worker explicitly stated that he would not attend work during the required times as his children’s care took priority.

The employer denies the allegations made by the worker:

·         There has not been unequal treatment

·         There have not been any unilateral changes made to the worker’s contract of employment

·         The current margin target has been achieved four times in the period January 2025 and July 2025, which indicates its fairness and achievability

·         Matters relating to control and authority lie with the Directors of the company.  The company needs more detail from the worker to understand what he means by independence being removed from him

·         There have not been repeated attempts to change his contract. The employer has requested an employee, the worker, to attend at his workplace under the direction of management. He has refused to do so citing childcare as the reason.

The employer denies there was anything untoward in the meeting arranged for the worker and the HR Advisor, this was done to ensure fairness and compliance in the issue. At the hearing the employer stated that the worker had refused to talk with the Directors of the company and had demanded mediation. A HR advisor was appointed to mediate but the worker denied the HR advisor was a mediator; as a result, mediation did not take place.

The employer strongly denied the allegations of bullying made by the worker.  Rather what had been taking place had been the issuing of standard management instructions.

The employer asserts that the worker does not have the right to work from home.  The work pattern in the company changed in early 2023 and staff have to attend the office on Wednesdays and one other day in the week from 10.00 to 16.00 hrs.  All other staff are complying with this arrangement.

The employer stated that there is no contractual obligation that the worker be allowed work from home, but the company would be flexible.

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

For several reasons an attempt at mediation never got off the ground.

I am firmly of the view that mediation could be productive for both the worker and the employer in this case.

I recommend an agreed, qualified, Mediator’s Institute of Ireland accredited mediator be appointed to help find a resolution to this dispute. This mediator to be appointed within four weeks of the issue of this recommendation to the parties. The mediator’s fees to be covered by the employer.

If a dispute arises over the selection of the mediator, the company is to select a list of three appropriate mediators from which the worker will select the mediator to do the mediation.

I encourage both parties to enter the mediation in good faith and with a will to resolve the matters which have created difficulties in the last few years and restore a positive and productive working relationship.

Mediation