ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002290
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Executive Officer | Regulatory Authority |
Representatives | Did not attend | Adrian Norton, IBEC |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act. | IR - SC - 00002290 | 29/02/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 21/01/2025
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.
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. The parties 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and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Worker’s complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 29/02/2024. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 07/03/2024 and notified of their right under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer within 21 days. The Employer was informed that failure to reply within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute proceeded to hearing.
I am satisfied that no objection to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer was received by the Workplace Relations Commission from the Employer.
The Worker or a representative on his behalf, did not attend the hearing. The Employer was represented by Ibec and three representatives from the employer attended..
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.
This is an unfair dismissals dispute referred pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 in circumstances where the Worker had less than 12 months service at time of dismissal.
No issues were raised as to my jurisdiction to hear this dispute as referred.
Background:
The Worker commenced employment with the respondent on 16/10/2023 as an Executive Officer. He was employed on a full-time permanent contract and earning a gross annual salary of €52,264. His employment was terminated on 16/01/2024 on the grounds of his failure to achieve the required performance standards during his probationary period. The complainant submitted his complaint form to the WRC on 29/02/2024. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker submitted his complaint form to the WRC on 29/02/2024. The Worker was notified on 13/11/2024of the date, time and location of the hearing. On 08/01/2025 the Worker contacted the WRC to clarify what the position was in relation to the Act and it was confirmed that “You have selected that you do not have 12 months service and therefore, your complaint will be heard under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act regarding an unfair dismissal with less than 12 months service”. The Employer provided a submission and this was copied to the Worker on 17/01/2025. There was a difficulty in relation to the format of the initial submission and this was rectified and was the reason for a delay in sending it to the WRC. The Worker contacted the WRC to say that he would not be in a position to attend the hearing and that he viewed the late submission as “some tactical ploy by (the Employer)”. He also stated that he would not be in a position to “defend myself from the grossly subjective distortion of the truth by the Employer at such short notice and unfortunately I will not be in a position to attend tomorrow”. The Worker was advised by the WRC that “The WRC do not postpone hearings due to late submissions; this will be a matter for the Adjudicator to deal with at the hearing. Please raise the issue at the outset of the hearing tomorrow. The Adjudicator will be aware you will be raising the issue with them”. The Worker did not attend and did not make any further contact with the WRC. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer’s representative and three representatives from the Employer attended the hearing. The Employer’s representative clarified the reason for the late submission and noted that they were not required to provide a submission in Industrial Relations cases but they provided one to be of assistance to the hearing. The submission consisted of 12 pages of narrative and a number of appendices most of which would have been in the possession of the Worker. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
As the Worker, or a representative on his behalf, did not attend the hearing. As it became apparent that there would be no attendance by the Worker I waited for a period of time before bringing the hearing to an end.
I am satisfied that the Worker was properly notified of the hearing arrangements. I am also satisfied that he was on proper notice that if he wished to seek a postponement then such an application should be made to the Adjudication Officer at the commencement of the hearing. The Worker did not avail of this opportunity. The non-attendance by the Worker, in these circumstances, is not an acceptable method by which a hearing can be postponed
I find that the Worker’s non-attendance at the time of the hearing to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In these circumstances I do not recommend in favour of the Worker. I recommend that the dispute be considered closed. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I am unable to make a recommendation in favour of the Worker. I recommend that the dispute be considered closed.
Dated: 05-02-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal, less than 12 months service. Non-attendance. |