Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Entertainer

An Entertainment Service Provider

Representatives

Self-represented 

HR Business Partner

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 - 00004540

20/06/2025

The Worker is a seasonal employee of the Employer. He alleged that his workplace becomes excessively hot during warmer periods.

The Worker submits as follows.

The Employer operates a number of tourist attractions, including medieval banquets in two castles. Each banquet, lasting approximately 2.5 hours, is supported by approximately 5-10 entertainers and attracts from 70 to 158 guests. Guests are treated to a 4-course meal with drinks.

Entertainers, some of whom are full-time personnel and some of whom are hired on a "casual", part-time basis, provide spoken and musical entertainment throughout the banquet.

Banquets in the location the Worker is employed at operate from mid-March to October, whereas banquets in the second location operate throughout the year. The Entertainment team at the Worker’s location is staffed almost exclusively by "casual" staff.

Being a 15th century stone castle (with a 19th century extension where the banquets take place), heat is retained, and thus the castle becomes unbearably hot in the warmer months, much to the discomfort of paying guests, but also for staff, who are required to wear thick velvet medieval costumes. The temperature is consistently 5+ degrees warmer than the external temperature.

There have been cases, in recent seasons, of staff, as well as guests, fainting in the heat, and the heat generates numerous complaints from guests to staff about the conditions in which they must enjoy the banquet. This places an additional, intolerable burden on staff.

Summary of complaint

Entertainer staff working in another location, under the exact same contractual conditions as staff at the location the Worker is based enjoy an air conditioning system. Entertainer staff working at the Worker’s location, however, do not. There is no air conditioning or ventilation whatsoever.

Temperatures at the Worker’s location, where he has been employed on temporary staff contracts since 2023, are consistently 2-4 degrees warmer than the exterior air temperature at the commencement of the banquet (approximately 6.45pm). During the course of a banquet, these temperatures rise to 3-5 degrees warmer than the exterior air temperature, due to the volume of guests (anything from 35-158 depending on bookings), and due to the hot food being served on heated plates.

While tolerable in the early and late parts of the season (March and October), the interior temperature becomes intolerable during the warmer months. Guests regularly leave the banquet hall. At least one staff member fainted in both 2023 and 2024 from the heat and had to leave the castle.

Entertainer staff must work in this environment in 1-2 layers of velvet medieval dress that significantly adds to the discomfort, and, in the Worker’s view, create an unhealthy and unsafe work environment.

Proposed solution

The Worker submits that the solution to the issue lies in wall-mounted air conditioning units. The Worker suggested a specific make/model of a unit. He suggested a manner in which it could be installed and addressed the legislation that governs such installation.

Response from the Employer

The Worker submits that the Employer claims to have adequately responded to his original complaint, primarily through the deployment of a mobile air conditioning unit. The Worker worked 86 days in the April – September 2025 period. The mobile unit was deployed in the banquet hall for two of those days. It was not used on other occasions either because it was not deployed prior to the Worker’s original complaint, or because it simply does not work. It does nothing to lower the air temperature. It takes up entertainers’ workspace and blocks the view of guests. It is noisy, and smells. Its power cable presents a work hazard. It is entirely out of character with the banquet hall.

Other measures claimed, such as the provision of staff water stations, and possible alterations to female costumes, do nothing to lower the air temperature. Doors to the banquet hall are already regularly open throughout the banquet.

The Worker addressed in detail the Employer’s obligations under the relevant health and safety legislation.

Conclusion

The absence of an adequate air conditioning system represents a violation of the Employer’s obligations to its workers. Temporary, mobile air conditioning units provide no relief, and present different hazards.

The employer cannot place entertainment staff working in one location under inferior health and safety conditions compared to staff in another location who are employed on identical contracts, terms, and conditions.

At the hearing, the Worker accepted the sincerity of the Employer and accepted that the long-term project of air-conditioning through the ceiling is a good solution.

The Worker raised a number of issues regarding performance review of the casual/seasonal staff and the insecurity of recurring employment, which were not relevant to this dispute.

The Worker said that he did not question the existence of a Grievance Policy but was unsure whether he was familiar with it.

Background

The Employer is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Local Authority, and manages, develops, and promotes a diverse portfolio of signature visitor attractions across the county – one of which is the location of the Worker’s employment.

The location is a 15th century medieval tower house surrounded by restored Victorian walled gardens. The Employer provides guided tours, seasonal medieval banquets (March – October) and wedding/event venue use (ad hoc times).

The Worker was employed as a Butler/Evening Entertainer at the location on a seasonal contract basis from 2023. A season typically runs from March to October each year, but contracts can be extended either side of these dates based on business need. Seasonal contracts are not guaranteed year on year, as the needs of the business may change. The Worker’s last contract with the Employer ran from 28 February 2025 to 23 December 2025. At the time of writing the Employer’s submission, the Worker was out of contract, and therefore not the Employer’s employee.

As an organisation, the Employer has yet to determine its 2026 seasonal staff need; however, any decisions made in that regard will have no relation to this case or recommendation.

As part of his duties, the Worker is required to wear costumes of the era to perform his duties.

Basis of the WRC Complaint

It is understood that the Worker is seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Specifically, that the Employer has failed to provide a safe working environment under the General Duty of Care (Safety, Health and Welfare at Work) Act 2005 and Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 in respect of temperature, ventilation and air quality. The redress that the Worker is seeking is that wall-mounted air conditioning units are installed to maintain an appropriate air temperature.

Respondent’s Position

It should be known and acknowledged that the location in question is a 15th century tower house and a protected structure. Any significant works to the structure of the building – specifically the installation of any wall-mounted air conditioning units - would require surveys, conservation architect input and planning approval.

The Employer recognises that at times during 2025, temperatures rose to high levels; and that the number of guests in the hall could reach 160, in addition to the 6 entertainers working. Windows are able to be opened and were.

The Worker’s concerns were taken seriously and actions to address were taken. When his complaint was received, it was immediately redirected to the Head of Operations who is responsible for the operations at the location, and in turn all health and safety requirements.

It is regrettable that communication with the Worker was not forthcoming as to actions being taken - this is a learning for all.

A vented air conditioning unit was already within the location but staff had decided not to use it as they deemed it too small and had to be vented out of the window. This unit was duly re-installed, used, and staff were trained on how to operate it.

Following further evaluation and discussion, two large non-vented air conditioning units were purchased, though one only was installed due to an assessment of need. It is acknowledged that the unit is large, but that is what is required for the capacity of the room. In addition, the smell staff referred to was because the units were new, and as such would dissipate over time.

It is regrettable that despite these remedial measures being put in, staff would turn them off when guests arrived and wheel them out of the room.

The Employer reviewed the feedback received from tour operators, guests and online. Only one TripAdvisor comment relating to the temperature was received in 2025.

In January 2026, a full risk assessment for the location was commissioned and completed by named consultants. The assessment relating to temperature levels in the banquet hall during high occupancy levels cites existing measures of:

·        portable air conditioning units,

·        occupancy numbers being controlled,

·        staff monitoring guest comfort,

·        water being available to staff,

·        staff informing a manager/supervisor if they feel unwell, and

·        the use of LED candles.

Additional controls were:

·        enforcement of maximum occupancy limits due to ventilation capacity,

·        pre-event assessment of temperature and air quality,

·        scheduled ventilation breaks between courses/performances,

·        doors opened between meal courses where practicable.

All of these measures when applied, reduces the risk to low.

In summary, the Employer’s position is:

·        The Worker submitted his concerns, and they were duly addressed as far as is practicable within a protected structure.

·        Ongoing reviews of the temperature levels were undertaken and will continue to be monitored as new digital temperature loggers will be installed prior to the 2026 season.

·        As part of the ongoing development works, the matter of a more permanent air conditioning solution will be discussed with all necessary professional parties (e.g., Conservation Architect, the Local Authority planning department and trades)

·        A water fountain was added for staff, and all were encouraged to use these.

·        Costumes amendments were made for female entertainers, and changes will be made to the male entertainer costumes in 2026 by our inhouse Seamstress.

Whilst it is acknowledged that communication on this matter was not ideal given the changing staff personnel, the Employer acted reasonably and in compliance with the law and its policies.

The Employer noted that no incident of fainting was entered in the Employer’s incident logbook.

The Employer confirmed that there was a Grievance Procedure in place and delivered a copy post-hearing.

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

The Worker’s dispute concerns the working environment within the banqueting hall, which he submits, becomes excessively hot during warmer periods. This is attributed to a combination of factors, including high guest occupancy, limited ventilation inherent in a historic structure, and the requirement for entertainers to wear heavy period costumes. The Worker contends that temperatures frequently exceed comfortable levels, resulting in staff discomfort, guest complaints, and, on occasion, reports of fainting.

It is well established in industrial relations practice that workplace grievances should, in the first instance, be addressed through internal procedures before recourse is made 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 the present case, the matter was not formally progressed through the Employer’s internal grievance procedures. However, it is acknowledged that the Worker raised his concerns by contacting the HR Business Partner on 20 May 2025, copying the Assistant Banqueting Manager. The HR Business Partner subsequently referred the matter to the relevant operational personnel. In the absence of any response, the Worker referred the matter to the WRC. The Worker also independently contacted the Health and Safety Authority. While management was made aware of the concerns, albeit outside the formal grievance process, it is noted that the Worker was not directed to utilise the grievance procedure at that time and that the Employer addressed the concerns outside that framework.

The Employer accepted that improvements in the context of the temperatures in the banqueting hall are required. A number of remedial measures have already been implemented, including the provision of portable air conditioning units, access to water stations, adjustments to costumes, and the commissioning of a risk assessment. Long-term solutions such as ceiling mounted air-conditioning and changes to the lighting are also under consideration.

While I accept that there is obligation on the Employer to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, a safe and suitable working environment, the protected status of the building places legitimate constraints on structural modifications and requires engagement with conservation and planning processes.

It appears that the Worker was under the misapprehension that I have the authority to compel the Employer to instal wall mounted air-conditioning units, based on his own research into their suitability, installation requirements, cost, and relevant planning considerations.

However, as explained to the parties at the hearing, I do not have either the authority or the technical expertise to direct the Employer to undertake specific building works or alterations.

It is evident that the Employer has taken steps to address the issue, albeit perhaps has not yet implemented a sufficiently effective or sustainable solution that would be required long-term.

In the interim, the effectiveness of short-term measures is contingent upon cooperation from staff, including the Worker.

It is acknowledged that the Employer has undertaken to implement certain medium- and long-term measures including redesigning costumes, and engagement with a conservation architect and the relevant Local Authority with a view to installing an effective permanent temperature control solution as part of the proposed redevelopment works.

I recommend that the following be implemented.

It is essential that the existing portable air conditioning units are fully operational, appropriately positioned, and consistently utilised during events where temperatures exceed acceptable levels. A clear protocol regarding their use should be established, prioritising health and safety considerations over aesthetic concerns. Additional units should be deployed where necessary to ensure meaningful cooling across the entire space.

The proposed introduction of temperature monitoring should be implemented without delay, with defined threshold levels triggering appropriate interventions when exceeded.

Management should engage with staff to review, where feasible, arrangements for scheduled breaks and staff rotation to reduce exposure to heat. A heat-related risk management procedure should be developed and communicated to all employees, including guidance on reporting symptoms and responding to heat stress incidents.

The implementation of medium- and long-term measures should be progressed and reviewed on a regular basis.

Finally, the Employer should take steps to improve communication with staff regarding both implemented and planned measures, in order to promote transparency and maintain trust.

Workplace conditions- increased temperature-