ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003314
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Former Employee | An Employer |
Representatives | Self-Represented | 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, 1969 | IR - SC - 00003314 | 21/10/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Date of Hearing: 13/03/2025
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.
Background:
The Worker referred a dispute under the bullying and harassment procedures to the Workplace Relations Commission on 21 October 2024. A statement was furnished in advance of the hearing and was duly considered. An interpreter was present to assist the Worker. Sufficient time was allowed to ensure the hearing was broken down to aid the interpreter with translation and, in turn, to ensure the Worker fully understood what was being discussed. The Employer attended with its representative and relied on its written submission. The name of the Employer was amended on consent during the hearing. Time was also provided to the Employer, following a request, for updated instructions during the hearing |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
It was the Worker’s position that she suffered work-related stress as a result of her Employer's conduct towards her. She submitted that she was unable to express herself to her manager, was shouted at by a colleague, received no response when she raised a grievance, and was not accommodated when she requested a letter for the Department of Social Protection. She was also questioned about her use of the bathroom, told that if she did not like her job, she could leave, and, after suffering a panic attack, was deemed unfit to work by her GP due to stress. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
It was the Employer’s response that they engaged with the Worker, but communication was difficult due to her level of English. To assist her, they requested a colleague who spoke both Spanish and English to act as a translator during a meeting on 21 October 2024. However, the meeting ended without resolution, as the Worker left before an agreement was reached. When the Worker went on sick leave, the Employer responded on 23 October 2024 by highlighting the dispute resolution procedures available to her, as outlined in her handbook. The Worker acknowledged that she was aware of the handbook. She subsequently resigned via email on 4 November 2024 without raising a grievance. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I find that the Worker did not exhaust the internal grievance and/or bullying and harassment procedures. The Employer offered the Worker an opportunity to invoke the policy in an email dated 23 October 2025. The Worker acknowledged the email and confirmed she was aware of the policy. As the Worker did not exhaust all internal procedures before referring the dispute to the WRC, I have no jurisdiction to make a Recommendation in respect of this dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I have no jurisdiction to make a Recommendation in respect of this dispute.
Dated: 14th of March 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Grievance |