LCR22959

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 20(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

BACKGROUND:

This dispute concerns a complaint in relation to treatment by the company. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 17 January 2024 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 03 May 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The Worker has unilaterally referred a trade dispute she contends she has with her former employer to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. In accordance with the provisions of that Act, she has undertaken to accept the Recommendation of the Court in the matter. No undertaking to this effect was required of or given by the employer.

The Worker set out to the Court that she was dissatisfied with the delivery of some or all of the training provided to her on her recruitment in February 2022. In particular, she alleges that the behaviour of one trainer was not appropriate. Her dissatisfaction with this matter ultimately led her to resign her employment on 6th May 2022. She made her referral under Section 20(1) of the Act of 1969 to this Court in January 2024.

The employer rejects all complaints of the Worker as regards the training provided to her and rejects any allegation of inappropriate behaviour on the part of a trainer.

It is undisputed that the trainer in respect of whom the Worker expresses dissatisfaction himself made a complaint at the time to the employer as regards the alleged behaviour of the Worker during the training being delivered by him.

The Court notes the lapse of time between the events at issue in this trade dispute and the date of its hearing. The Court also notes the lapse of time since the employment relationship concluded.

It is clear that there is no shared understanding of the factual matrix underpinning the parties’ trade dispute.

Against that background the Court recommends that both parties accept that their employment relationship has irretrievably broken down and that no payment of compensation could repair that relationship.

Similarly, given the direct difference between the parties as regards every factual element of material events occurring during the employment relationship as borne out by the parties’ submission to the Court, there is no reality to the proposition that the Court could, in this industrial relations context, establish the facts of the matter.

In all of these circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties, in exercise by them both of realism, pragmatism and common sense, should (a) accept that their trade dispute is not capable of resolution by way of agreement between them, and (b) regard their trade dispute as resolved by common acceptance of the situation.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
AR	______________________
07 May 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.