ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000964
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Employee | Employer |
Representatives |
| Lisa Moloney IBEC Jackie Defelice HR Ben Nappy Managing Director |
Disputes:
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 - 00000964 | 21/12/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00000965 | 21/12/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00066917-001 | 21/12/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Date of Hearing: 28/08/2023 and 29/07/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, the said Director General will then refer such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence/testimony of the parties and their witnesses and will also take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
A Trade Dispute in this context will include any dispute between an employer and a worker which is connected with the employment or the non-employment, or with the terms and conditions relating to and/or affecting the employment of any person.
As noted, Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me (an Adjudicator so appointed) to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties and on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendations I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto. Any consideration on the merits of the dispute will include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised before bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC. I am obliged to anonymise any recommendation made as part of the IR process.
Background:
This matter was initially listed for hearing in Lansdowne House on the 28th of August 2023. Both parties attended and oral accounts commenced. It was agreed that a second day was needed, and that the Complainant would take the opportunity between hearing dates to provide a more comprehensive submission together with relevant documents and information on a timeline. The Complainant agreed that this would be done within four weeks of the 28th of August 2023. Nothing further has been heard from the Complainant and eventually it was determined that this matter needed to be relisted for hearing to either progress the matter or bring some finality.
|
Summary of Workers Case:
The Complainant was not represented on the first day and the Complainant did not attend at the re scheduled hearing. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 4th of June 2024 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant sought to establish an Unfair Dismissal in circumstances where she had less than 12 months employment. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Respondent had representation on both days. Witnesses for the Respondent included a HR Manager and the Managing Director. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated the 21st of June 2023. The Respondent rejects that there has been a Dismissal and does not accept any contravention of Employment Rights as protected by statute. Where I deemed it necessary, I made and would have made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Conclusions:
As the Complainant did not attend the second day of hearing assigned to her case, I am not in a position to give any consideration to the merits of her case and am consequently not in a position to make any recommendations arising out of the parties’ presentations. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
IR - SC – 00000964 - I make no recommendation
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
IR - SC – 00000965 – I make no recommendation
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
CA-00066917-001 - – I make no recommendation
Dated: 02-12-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|