ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004752
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Insulation Contractor |
Representatives | Did not appear and was not represented | Self-represented. |
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 | IR - SC - 00004752 | 18/07/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Date of Hearing: 20/02/2026
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.
For the Worker the hearing was not attended and he was not represented.
For the Employer the hearing was attended by, the Employer managing Director.
I allowed the parties, present, to make representation to me and, where appropriate, I made my own enquiries. Having asked the attendee, and having satisfied myself, that I had heard all the relevant submissions put to me I formally closed the hearing.
Background:
Complaint IR - SC - 00004752 The Worker set out that they were never given any warnings, written or verbal before I was dismissed today the 18th of July 2025 by the contracts manager. The misconduct in question was due to his being photographed resting in a “dry room” on a construction site. The Complaint states he received no warnings verbally or written before the dismissal and it is his feeling that fair procedure has not been followed and he has been unfairly terminated from the company. It is the Employer case that the Worker was photographed sleeping on two separate occasions by a client and his conduct leading to and involving being found sleeping at work on more than one occasion was Gross Misconduct. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker did not attend and was not represented. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer disputed the case in its entirety and offered me evidence in relation to both matters. Given the absence of the referring party and that the matter was not being pursued this was not necessary. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The Worker in this case was contacted by the Case Officer the day before the hearing as they had submitted no documentation to pursue their claim/dispute, other than the WRC claim form. They informed the Case Officer that they did not know of the hearing and that they would be at work on the day. The Worker subsequently emailed the commission to state they would not be attending. The Worker did not state that they were withdrawing their complaint and dispute and on that basis the I opened the hearing and allowed for submissions from the Employer. It emerged that the Worker had, at late notice, emailed the Commission to state he would not be attending. This came too late to cancel or otherwise postpone the hearing. I am satisfied that the Worker is on notice of the hearing by letter and phone call from the Commission. Having heard from the Employer and their case in summary; I have to find the dispute referred, IR - SC - 00004752 is misconceived. I make no recommendation in the favour of the Worker |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
IR - SC - 00004752 under S13 Industrial Relations Acts
I make no recommendation on the dispute in favour of the Worker
Dated: 12-05-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Key Words:
|