Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Labourer

A Building Company

Representatives

Felipe Pimentel Gomes Garcia on day 1 of hearing, no appearance by or on behalf of the Worker on day 2 of hearing

 No Appearance by or on behalf of the Employer on Day 1 of hearing.

The Proprietor attended on the second day of hearing.

Act

Dispute Reference No.IR-SC-00001281-001

And

IR-SC-00001281-002

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC – 00001281-001 and                 IR-SC-00001281-002

15/04/2023

On 15 April 2023, the Worker, A third country national submitted two disputes under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

These disputes were linked to 6 employment rights claims which went to a Public Hearing.

Both parties were invited to scribe an account of the disputes prior to hearing on October 6, 2023. Neither party accepted the invitation.

On the first day of hearing, the employer did not attend citing injury and a parallel issue outstanding between the parties.

The Worker attended in the company of his representative but was ill prepared. He also requested provision of an interpreter.

I adjourned the hearing, giving clear instructions to both parties for the resumed hearing on November 20, 2023.

The Employer engaged in the resumed hearing, but the worker did not engage in the request for submissions or by attendance at the resumed hearing.

The Employer raised an issue that the Worker may not have had approval to work in the State during his employment.

No documentation was shared by either party on the workers approval to work in Ireland.

I must now record the worker as a no show in his own cases.

IR-SC-00001281-001

The Worker claimed that he was compelled to leave his job due to the conduct of the employer. He declined the invitation to set out the circumstances of his claim by way of written submission.

IR-SC-00001281-002

The Worker claimed that he was humiliated in the workplace because of his race, colour and nationality. He declined the invitation to set out the circumstances of his claim by way of written submission.

The Employer operates a construction business in the South of Ireland and also operates across Northern Ireland and the UK.

The Employer disputed the claims made and maintained that the worker had not raised a grievance in the workplace prior to communication of the complaints to the WRC.

The Worker, a Brazilian National, worked as a Labourer at the business from 18 June 2022 to 17 February 2022, when he left without formal resignation or stated reasons for his departure.

The Employer said they came to defend the case as they wholly disputed the allegations levied at the company.

IR-SC-00001281-001

The Employer told the hearing that the worker had not tendered his resignation and simply left. Issues on whether he was legally employed have now emerged as the complainant did not present a Stamp 4 visa, nor was he requested to do so.

The Worker did not raise a grievance during his employment.

The Employer sought the case be dismissed.

IR-SC-000001281-002

The Employer argued that this was a duplicate claim and denied by the company.

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

My role in this case is to investigate the claims and if I find merit in the claims to share a Recommendation with the Parties.

My progress has been hampered by the workers absence from the second day of hearing and his refusal to set out the circumstances of the claims.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 must be read as Rights Commissioner / Adjudicator and is focused on the presence of a Dispute between an employee and an employer.

Rights commissioners.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled—

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and

(ii) notify the Court of the recommendation.

(b) A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute—

(i) if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute, or

(ii) if a party to the dispute notifies the commissioner in writing that he objects to the dispute being investigated by a rights commissioner.

The Employer agreed to the Workers application for Investigation.

In the absence of the Worker. His narrative and any chronology in the case, I have not identified a Dispute for me to investigate.

I have not been able to determine the workers legal standing as a Worker in this story.

IR-SC-00001281-001

The claim is without merit.

IR-SC-00001281-002

The claim is without merit

Claim for Constructive Dismissal, less than 12 months service, claim of humiliation in the workplace.