Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

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 -00004771

22/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

IR - SC - 00004772

22/07/2025

The Worker was employed by the Employer from 23 January 2025 until 17 July 2025. He earned €550 gross per week. The dispute concerns the termination of his employment and a trade dispute referred under the Industrial Relations Acts 1969.

The Worker submitted that he did not receive manual handling training and raised concerns regarding the safety of his working environment.

The Worker submitted that he was required to undertake manual handling duties involving heavy lifting without having received manual handling training, despite having raised the issue with management. The Worker stated that he subsequently sustained an injury at work.

Regarding the termination of his employment, the Worker submitted that he was accused of taking mattresses without payment and requested to view CCTV footage which allegedly supported the allegation. The Worker stated that no footage was shown to him, no investigation was conducted, and that he was dismissed by two managers following the accusation. The Worker confirmed that he obtained alternative employment approximately one week after his dismissal and that his earnings in the new role were higher.

The Employer submitted that a third party had been engaged to provide manual handling training to employees.

The Employer submitted that the Worker’s contract contained a three-month probationary period, which applied to all employees. It further submitted that, at the conclusion of the initial probationary period, concerns arose regarding the Worker’s performance, and a discussion took place between the Worker and a manager. The Worker was advised that his probationary period would be extended for a further three months due to those performance concerns.

The Employer further submitted that a fellow employee reported that the Worker had admitted to taking mattresses from the premises without payment. It was submitted that this allegation ultimately resulted in the termination of the Worker's employment.

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

I find that I do have jurisdiction to make a Recommendation in this dispute, as the internal formal grievance procedures have neither been invoked by the Worker.

The Employer submitted that the decision to terminate the Worker's employment arose from allegations of theft. While it was asserted that the Worker initially admitted taking mattresses from the premises before later disputing the allegations, no evidence was presented that a formal investigation was carried out.

In particular, there was no evidence of any invitation to an investigatory or disciplinary meeting, no minutes of meetings, and no evidence that the allegations were formally put to the Worker.

An Employer is required, where allegations arise, to conduct an investigation in accordance with fair procedures as contemplated by S.I. No. 146/2000, Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order 2000.

In the absence of any investigation, there is no documentation to suggest that fair procedures were afforded to the Worker prior to the termination of his employment.