ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031064
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A chef | A hotel |
Representatives | None | Michael MacNamee BL instructed by ARAG Legal Protection |
Disputes:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00041302-001 | 29/11/2020 |
Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00041302-002 | 29/11/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/09/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 29th November 2020, the worker submitted disputes to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. The disputes were scheduled for adjudication on the 27th September 2021. Following the designation of the Workplace Relations Commission per section 31 of the Criminal Law and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the hearing took place remotely.
The worker attended the adjudication. Two witnesses attended for the respondent, which was represented by Michael MacNamee BL, instructed by Matthew Bennett, ARAG Legal Protection.
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the disputes.
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker gave an outline of his interactions with a senior manager in the hotel kitchen and a subsequent period of lay-off. During the hearing, the worker outlined his current situation and indicated that he was open to returning to his role with the employer. This led to an agreement between the parties, which I adopt as my recommendation. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer was present to address the disputes. Through its representative, Michael MacNamee BL, the employer reached an agreement with the worker, which I adopt as my recommendation. |
Conclusions:
At the hearing, the worker gave an outline of his role at the employer hotel and his current situation as well as his future intentions. He indicated that he was open to returning to this role. The parties and I mapped out how and when the worker could so return. I adopt the agreement reached by the parties as my recommendation. The agreement is that the worker will attend a return-to-work meeting on Monday, 4th October 2021 and will meet the HR Manager and a senior kitchen manager. The worker will return on a part-time basis and will be rostered for work three days a week. The worker will be paid €13.50 per hour. The parties will engage in good faith and in cognisance of the Codes of Practice issued by the Workplace Relations Commission. There were two disputes, but for the sake of clarity I make one recommendation which encompasses both disputes. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the disputes.
CA-00041302-001 and CA-00041302-002 I recommend that the worker attend a return-to-work meeting on Monday, 4th October 2021 and meet the HR Manager and a senior kitchen manager. I recommend that the worker then return on a part-time basis and be rostered for work three days a week. I recommend that the worker be paid €13.50 per hour. I recommend that the parties engage in good faith and in cognisance of the Codes of Practice issued by the Workplace Relations Commission. |
Dated: 30-09-21
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act / return to work |