Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Marketing Manager

Hotel

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms. Terrisue Cosgrove, The HR Head

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 - 00001316

25/04/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001317

25/04/2023

On 25th April 2023, the Worker referred two disputes within the meaning of the impleaded Acts to the Commission. In circumstances whereby the Respondent did not object to the investigation of the same within the statutory timeframe, the same proceeded to hearing.

By submission, the Worker stated that she suffered ongoing bullying and harassment at the hands of the general manager of the Respondent. While the Employer denied these allegations on a general basis, they submitted that the subject matter was not appropriate for a referral under the present Act.

These disputes were listed in parallel to numerous other complaints issued under justiciable employment rights legislation. During the hearing, the Adjudicator raised an issue as to the propriety of the present referral given the nature and detail of the matters heard in parallel. In circumstances whereby this will be determinative of the entire set of proceedings, it will be discussed in advance of a consideration of the substantive matter.

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

As set out above, the present dispute was listed for hearing alongside numerous other complaints in relation to justiciable legislation. The subject matter of such matters was considered at length over two days of hearings and has resulted in a number of decisions in relation to the matters as referred.

In the matter of Nua Healthcare Services Limited -v- A Worker LCR22758, the Labour Court held as follows,

“…noting in particular that the worker has elected to have the facts of the matter addressed in law, the Court concludes that there can be no value from a trade dispute resolution standpoint in the Court purporting to address the underlying facts which have given rise to this trade dispute as an industrial relations matter.”

More recently, in the matter of A Worker -v- Grant Engineering LCR22984, the Court held that,

“…it is inappropriate to conflate matters which form the substance of a series of justiciable complaints under law with matters described as a trade dispute in the voluntarist framework.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is further noted that parties are now involved in multiple other sets of proceedings. In this regard it is noted that the purpose of the Commission in regard to disputes referred under the Industrial Relations Acts is offer a practical solution to a dispute, within a voluntarist framework, in an effort to resolve the issues between the parties. Notwithstanding the observations above, regarding the present dispute it is clear that the parties are entirely and irrevocably at odds with each other, with both parties rancorously alleging various civil and criminal breaches against the other. In such circumstances, it is difficult to envision any practical, workable solution to the trade dispute that may result from this investigation. In such circumstances, I find that it would be inappropriate to issue any recommendation in favour of either party to the dispute.

Trade Dispute, Parallel Proceedings, Recommendation