ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00005685
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Receptionist, Ms. A | A Medical Practice |
Representatives |
| Shane Mc Donald |
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, 1969 | IR - SC - 00005685 | 18/11/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Date of Hearing: 08/05/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) 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.
As this is a trade dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. They are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
Background:
The worker, by complaint form dated 18 November 2025, submitted the within claim under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 alleging that she had a Trade Dispute that she would like investigated. The worker also submitted a claim of constructive dismissal under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 which was heard together with the within dispute. In the Unfair Dismissal claim the worker submitted that she was left with no option but to resign her employment on 10 November 2025 alleging that the reason for same was due to the employer’s failure to honour a decision of the WRC which issued on 30th September 2025. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker in her claim form submitted to the WRC on the 18th of November 2025 did not provide any detail of the Industrial Relations dispute other than to tick the section which states ‘I have a Trade Dispute that I would like investigated’. The worker on this date also submitted a letter dated 14th of November 2025 and in this document outlined her dispute as follows Re: Defamation of character accusation of dishonesty.Page 18 of Complaint Form: The employer sent an email to me dated (find enclosed with my paperwork) stating that I received a double payment from him to the amount of €803.72 on that had been recently discovered by him, which I did not alert him of and that this was owed back to him. As I never received pay slips, I had no way to prove this, so I checked my bank account. I discovered I did indeed receive this payment, but it was my salary as we had moved to fortnightly pay and this would have been the first double payment in my salary. Rather than him check out how I had received this payment he immediately accused me of being dishonest and this had to be paid back to him. His failure to retract this accusation to which he admitted at the hearinCL9(OS/2O25 was a mistake on his part once again shows his lack of respect to me as my employer and yet again another attempt by him to assassinate my character and is totally unacceptable The worker advised the hearing that she had been out of work on sick leave since January 2025 and had not retuned to work. The worker advised the hearing that she had resigned her employment on 10th of November 2025 after the employer had failed to honour an award of compensation of €800 made in a decision by an Adjudication Officer on 30th of September 2025 following a hearing in May 2025. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submits that there was no detail of the IR dispute in the claim form. The employer submits that the claim form was accompanied by a letter dated 14th of November 2025 in which the workers sets out that her IR dispute relates to an allegation of defamation of character and of dishonesty against the worker in respect of an accusation of double payment having been made to her by the employer. It is thereunder detailed that the Worker raises issue with an email sent by the Employer on the 13th of January 2025 in respect of a double payment made to the Complainant. The employer submits that the WRC is not the appropriate forum to seek to raise any and/or any alleged issue of defamation. The employer submits that the Worker worked for the Employer from October 2021 until her resignation on 10 November 2025. The employer submits that the Worker has previously brought two employment-related complaints before the WRC which were heard on 19 August 2025. The first claim brought under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Commission awarded €800 compensation. In relation to the second claim brought under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the Commission recommended that the Employer pay the Worker €1,500. Both decisions are dated 30 September 2025. The employer submits that the Worker resigned by letter dated 10 November 2025 having been on sick leave since 1 January 2025, she did not return to work after the Commission’s decisions. The employer submits that the resignation letter states that the worker resigned because the Employer failed to honour the Commission’s decision. The employer submits that on or about 28 November 2025, the Employer paid the Worker€800 by bank transfer and €1,314.89 for two weeks’ annual leave following her resignation. The employer submits that although the Commission’s recommendation was not legally binding, the Employer paid the Worker €1,500 on or about 3 March 2026. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The worker in this case submits that she was left with no option but to resign her employment because the Employer failed to honour the Commission’s decision in respect of a previous complaint brought by the worker to the WRC in respect of which a decision had issued on 30th of September 2025.
The worker advised the hearing that the decision issued on 30th of September 2025 and awarded her €800 in compensation. The worker advised the hearing that the IR recommendation in a related matter also issued that date and awarded her a sum of€1,500. The worker advised the hearing that the employer did not pay the compensation awarded or recommended and so she was left with no option but to resign her employment which she did on the 10th of November 2025. The worker stated that she had initiated Court proceedings on 26th of November 2025 in an attempt to have the compensation award enforced and stated that the employer did not pay the award of compensation until after they had received notice of court action being taken by the worker in this regard. The worker at the hearing alleged that the employer had sought to defame her character by accusing her of dishonesty in alleging that it had made a double payment to her on the 8th of February 2023.
The worker stated that the employer had raised this matter with her in an email dated the 13th of January 2025 in which it requested the repayment of this double payment. The worker submits that there was no double payment made to her and stated that this payment was reflective of a recent move to forth nightly payments.
The worker states that the employer failed to retract this accusation and that it was referred to in the previous hearing on 19th of August 2025 which she states was an attempt to assassinate her character. The employer submits that a WRC adjudication is not the correct forum to deal with an allegation of defamation. The worker in submitting this claim asserts that the employer sent her an email in January 2025 in this regard and also referred to this matter in a previous hearing and that this amounts to an attempt to defame her character and damage her reputation. The worker submits that in taking this claim she is seeking to “reclaim (her) reputation.” The worker also refers to the harm caused to her reputation by this allegation. The employer advised the hearing that as this matter is taking place in private there would in any event be no public record of this allegation against the worker. In addition, the employer stated that the worker has initiated this as an IR claim and so any attempt to clear her name regarding this matter would also only be published in an anonymised manner. The employer also added that the complainant’s reference to this matter being mentioned in a previous hearing cannot amount to defamation as this matter if it was adduced in evidence at a hearing to support the employer case cannot be considered to be defamatory.
Having examined the decision in respect of the previous hearing I can see no reference to this allegation by the employer in the published decision, so I am satisfied that there is no public record of this allegation having been made against the claimant. I also note that there was a separate IR recommendation in respect of the previous hearing and that this took place in private and that the recommendation which was published in this regard is anonymised. In addition, it should be noted that this matter is taking place in private and that the recommendation in respect of same is anonymised. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is no public record of this allegation having been levelled against the complainant.
Having considered the totality of the arguments adduced in respect of this matter I do not recommend in favour of the complainant. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having considered the totality of the arguments adduced in respect of this matter I do not recommend in favour of the complainant. |
Dated: 21 September 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|