ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000817
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Administrator | Playcentre |
Representatives | Mr. John Keenan, JRK Business Support | Ms. Valerie Morrison, Peninsula |
Dispute:
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 - 00000817 | 03/11/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Date of Hearing: 16/06/2023
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.
Background:
The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in May 2019. On 3rd November 2022, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Shortly thereafter, the Worker’s employment was terminated on 28th November 2022. In the absence of any objection from the Employer the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 16th June 2023. At the outset of the hearing, the parties confirmed the termination of the Complainant’s employment was the subject of a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. In circumstances whereby the subject matter of this dispute overlaps completely with the subject matter of the other complaint, the Adjudicator queried as to whether the parties wished to continue with the dispute. The recommendation below will consider this preliminary point. |
Summary of the Worker’s Case as to the Preliminary Issue:
Following the enquiry from the Adjudicator the Worker’s representative indicated that they wished to proceed with the present dispute. In this regard, they stated that they wished to examine the process undertaken by the Employer and outline their position as to why they believed that the Worker had been treated unfairly. |
Summary of the Employer’s Case as to the Preliminary Issue:
The Employer agreed that the matter would be more appropriately considered under the alternative legislation impleaded. Nonetheless, they indicated that they were prepared to meet and dispute the Worker’s allegations. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
Having regard to the subject matter of the submissions as presented, it is apparent that the same relates to much of the subject matter of a forthcoming hearing. In this regard, it is apparent that there is nothing within the present dispute that will not be adjudicated upon in the forthcoming matter.
In the matter of Nua Healthcare Services Limited -v- A Worker LCR22758, the Labour Court held as follows,
“…noting in particular that the worker has elected to have the facts of the matter addressed in law, the Court concludes that there can be no value from a trade dispute resolution standpoint in the Court purporting to address the underlying facts which have given rise to this trade dispute as an industrial relations matter.”
Having regard to the foregoing, I find that it would be inappropriate to make a recommendation in favour of either party in relation to the dispute as presented. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having regard to the submission of the parties, I neither recommend for the Employer or the Worker in relation to the present dispute.
Dated: 23-08-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Alternative Proceedings, Trade Dispute |