ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001668

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Mechanic	A Car Dealership

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 - 00001668	12/08/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh

Date of Hearing: 06/02/2024

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. An interpreter was present during the hearing.

Summary of Workers Case:

The worker was employed with the respondent as a service technician since September 2019. The worker is a Spanish national and states that he is not that proficient in written or spoken English.

The worker states that he was issued with a final written warning in April 2021 but did not understand the consequences of same as it was not explained to him by his employer. He states that at that juncture he was not afforded a right to an interpreter or to appeal the decision to give him the warning.

The worker states that on commencement of his employment he was not given the appropriate PPE gear to carry out his duties.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The employer states that a final written warning was issued to the complainant in April 2021. The employer explained that during routine servicing, brake pads were replaced by the complainant but a bolt was left loose during the works which was a serious matter and it was on that basis that the warning was issued.

The employer stated that the warning was expunged from the worker’s employment record in April 2022.

The employer furnished a copy of the Employee Handbook which it states is provided to all employees. It stated when any changes occur, the handbook is updated and the updated document is sent to all employees. The employer refers to page 66 of same wherein it confirms that a final written warning expires after 12 months.

The employer confirmed that appropriate health and safety and PPE gear was furnished to the complainant.

Conclusions:

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

Having examined the information provided in the within dispute, I find that the final written warning that the worker took issue with was expunged from the worker’s employment record in April 2022. I also find that no evidence was provided by the worker to substantiate a complaint that he was not given appropriate PPE gear.

In all of the circumstances, I find that the within dispute is not well founded and in those circumstances I do not recommend in favour of the worker.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I find that the within dispute is not well founded and in those circumstances, I do not recommend in favour of the worker.

Dated: 03/05/2024