Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Cleaner

Service Provision Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms. Anna Rosa Raso, ESA Consultants

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00059916

10/11/2023

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 15th September 2022. At all relevant times the Complainant’s role was described as that of “cleaner”. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 27th April 2023.

On 10th November 2023, the Complainant referred the present dispute to the Commission. A hearing in relation to this matter was initially convened for 2nd February 2024. At the outset of this hearing, the parties indicated that they had reached an agreement in relation to the complaints as referred by the Complainant. Following confirmation of the same, the Complainant requested that the matter be subject to a short adjournment to allow for the implementation of the provisionally agreed terms. Following the grant of this application, the Complainant corresponded with the Commission stating that the matter had not in fact been settled and requested that the same be reconvened for hearing.

Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 28th May 2024. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing.

By submission, the Worker stated that while the matter was provisionally settled between the parties, she wished to resile from the same and proceed with the hearing.

By submission, the Employer stated that the matter had been settled between the parties and that the matter should be deemed to be withdrawn.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Employer has submitted that the Complainant has effectively settled all disputes between that parties, and that the matter should not proceed. While the legal doctrine of estoppel has limited application to a trade dispute under the present Act, it is noted that the Worker had sought to pursue her rights under justiciable legislation and has reached an agreement in settlement of the same.

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.”  

Having regard to the factual matrix presented by the parties, and the authorities cited above, I find it would be inappropriate to make a recommendation in relation to this dispute.

Parallel Complaints, Settlement Agreement