ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004452
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Employee Relations |
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 - 00004452 | 10/06/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Date of Hearing: 27/11/2025
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. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.
As this is a trade dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private and the parties are not named. They are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
The Worker attended the hearing and represented herself. The Worker was accompanied by a friend. The Employer was represented by Employee Relations.
I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this referral. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing in order to gain an understanding of the full extent of this dispute.
Where applicable this investigation may involve an assessment of whether processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. 146 of 2000.
I have confirmed that the Worker herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the dispute as set out in section 13. It is noted section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendation/s I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the position of the parties thereto.
It is noted that any consideration on the merits of the dispute will include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised before referring the dispute to the WRC.
At the outset of hearing it became apparent that the dispute at issue in the within referral had not been raised internally with the Employer through the appropriate internal mechanisms. It was explained to the Worker that there is a duty to exhaust all internal remedies that are available prior to the referral of a dispute to the WRC and that It is well established by the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court that they do not intervene in a dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 until all internal grievance procedures have been fully exhausted.
Background:
This matter came before the WRC dated 10/06/2025 as a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The aforesaid dispute was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 27/11/2025. The specific complaint details on the WRC complaint form set out that the Worker has a trade dispute she would like investigated. There was no further detail provided on the complaint form. There was no detail on the specific nature of the dispute or the resolution sought by the Worker. The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in 1989. The Worker’s written submission comprised a list of bullet points a number of which are set out below under summary of the Worker’s case. The Employer provided a written submission setting out the background to the complaint and a chronology of events arising from the national establishment of an initiative within the entity in which the Worker was employed together with the Employer position on the matter. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker submits that due to restructuring within [REDACTED] her job was abolished and the union was contacted and a meeting was arranged where they highlighted their concerns but that she never heard anything further and before she knew it she was in a new post in a new location. The Worker submits she felt invisible and totally disrespected and there were no answers from management to her questions. The Worker submits that when she sought to stay where she was as she didn’t want to go to [REDACTED] she was told she had no choice as her job was abolished. The Worker submits there were two new posts created where she was and she wasn’t offered them. The Worker submits she has tried to move on but the impact of this has caused her so much stress and that not a day goes by that she cannot stop thinking about it. The Worker submits the union did talk to management to see if she could maybe get moved to a different pay scale or get some kind of allowance.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer submits local management engaged with the Worker who was supported by her trade union throughout. The Employer submits the nationally agreed initiative was implemented and staff were assigned in accordance with geographical boundaries. The Employer submits the Worker did not escalate her concerns through formal [REDACTED] policies and procedures. The Employer submits management remains open to supporting the Worker through the appropriate internal mechanisms should she wish to formally raise or revisit any specific concerns. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The consideration of a trade dispute and any recommendation thereto is informed and guided by previous decisions of the Labour Court as they apply to a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Act.
It is well established that before bringing a grievance to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), a Worker must firstly exhaust the internal procedures available at their workplace.
I have regard to the case of Gregory Geoghegan t/a TAPS v A Worker [INTI014] in which the Labour Court held as follows:
"The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute resolution procedures have been bypassed”.
Accordingly, I remit this matter back to the parties.
|
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 I am precluded from making a recommendation on this matter.
Dated: 17-12-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
Internal procedures not utilised; |