ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001447
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Engineer | A Refrigeration Company |
Representatives |
| Peninsula Business Services |
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 - 00001447 | 10/06/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Date of Hearing: 10/04/2024
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.
Summary of Workers Case:
The complainant was requested to attend investigation meetings in relation to poor performance in November 2022 and following a period of sick leave was required to attend an investigation into repeated poor performance on December 8th, 2022. After many requests for details in relation to what constituted the poor performance, he was provided with two job sheets; the second of which had been changed to show poor performance. He attended the investigation meeting on December 8th 2022 and was invited to comment on five different incidents, and he offered explanations for all the issues raised. He was told that two clients had contacted the Service Manager directly by phone and made complaints. The notice of the investigation meeting clearly stated it was not a disciplinary hearing and he did not get any report of the investigation His employment was terminated following a disciplinary hearing on January 10th 2024. He appealed but it was not successful. He never got the result of the appeal either.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The complainant has brought a complaint pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. In his complaint form he refers to “Bullying and Harassment Procedures” and states.
“I made my first complaint on the 22/November/2022 after my work van was lifted without my knowledge or consent. I never received a reply to my complaint, 25/November/ 2022 the persons to whom I made the complaint opened an investigation using falsified document showing wrong doing and fabricated two complaints/ did not have any complaint in writing.”
In the latter part of his claim, the complainant has made serious allegations here for which he has failed to provide details and particulars. This paragraph is insufficient and places the respondent in a difficult position where we do not know which allegedly changed document (if any) is being raised by the complainant.
In addition, and with regard to the above, the respondent further submits their concerns regarding any possible association of this complaint with other statutory complaints referred to the WRC. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The narrative giving rise to this complaint is essentially the same as that grounding a separate complaint made under the Unfair Dismissals Act and which has been fully addressed in a separate ADJ, (which may not be referenced here as it would reveal the identity of the complainant.) Accordingly, this complaint is not upheld. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons set out above IR-SC-0001447 is not upheld
Dated: 21st May, 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
|