ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001240
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | worker | Managed Services Company |
Representatives | self | Emily Maverley |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00001240 | 03/04/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Date of Hearing: 13/02/2024
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(s).
Background:
This case has been referred under the Industrial Relations Act specifically relating to S.I. No. 674/2020 - Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work) Order 2020. The worker was assisted by a translator. During the hearing the Worker stated that the primary reason for referring the matter to the WRC was in connection with an accident at work and that it was connected to being pregnant. The Worker also stated that on numerous occasions she had been told by her line supervisor that she shouldn’t be at work because she was pregnant. The Worker never informally or formally invoked the internal grievance procedure or the procedures specifically relating to dignity at work and as required under the code. It was also clear that other complaints were being attached to the grievance that were not properly before the Commission as these matters referred to an accident at work. After the worker completed presenting her dispute, it was evident that no complaint had been made to the Employer and her complaint was more about an alleged accident at work. In these circumstances the referral of how the investigation of the grievance under the code was conducted is premature. |
Summary of Workers Case:
During the hearing the Worker stated that the primary reason for referring the matter to the WRC was in connection with an accident at work and that it was connected to being pregnant. The Worker also stated that on numerous occasions she had been told by her line supervisor that she shouldn’t be at work because she was pregnant. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer stated that the matters complained about were never raised with them and therefore it was not appropriate that the Commission hear the case. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
After hearing from both parties, I am satisfied that the internal procedures have not been exhausted and in these circumstances, it is not appropriate for me to hear this complaint. I decline jurisdiction to hear the grievance and make no recommendation. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
After hearing from both parties, I am satisfied that the internal procedures have not been exhausted and, in these circumstances, it is not appropriate for me to hear this complaint. I decline jurisdiction to hear the grievance and make no recommendation.
Dated: 28th of February 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Procedures-Jurisdiction |