ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011187
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rui Jorge Espirito Santo | Occipital Limited t/a Cpl Integrated Services -CPL Plc |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Technical Support Analyst | An IT and Services Support Company |
Representatives | Self-represented | Darragh Whelan IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00014894-001 | 09/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/07/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
This case concerns a dispute between the Complainant and an IT Services support company. It is part of a series of related complaints. The claim here concerns an allegation of a “Botched” use of internal Disciplinary and Grievance procedures. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant made an oral presentation in which he alleged that a Disciplinary action against him under the Respondent’s Procedures had been “botched” and devoid of Natural Justice. Decisions given are completely arbitrary and at the whim of the HR Business Partner. Evidence is not given due weight or is simply ignored. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent completely refuted the arguments made. Procedures are detailed and in keeping with best industry practices. SI no 146 of 2000 – Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures is fully observed. The Procedures are applied professionally at all times. The Complainant made wild allegations that are simply not supported by any evidence. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
The basic rules of Natural Justice apply here. A claim must be based on evidence. The Labour Court has stated on many occasions that “mere allegations” are not sufficient to ground a claim. In this case there was a complete lack of any concrete evidence other than allegations that I did not think could be sustained. The Respondent was handicapped by a lack of any firm materials against which a rebuttal defence could be made. Accordingly, I had to find that there was no sustainable base advanced in support of this claim.
The claim is dismissed. |
4: Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Summary recommendation. Please refer to Section 3 above for detailed reasoning. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00014894-001 | Recommendation is that the claim be dismissed for lack of any realistic evidence. |
Dated: 21/09/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
|