ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004858
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives | Self-represented | Aoife McGookin IBEC |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00004858 | 01/08/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Date of Hearing: 21/01/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker stated that he should have been notified sooner of the outcome of an appeal regarding his termination. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that it notified the worker of the outcome on 15 August 2025 of an appeal heard on 11 July 2025. It accepted that it could have been more responsive but noted that there was a general shut down of the employer for the first two weeks of August, as per its normal procedures and that there were staff absences due to annual leave. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The appeal of the decision to terminate the employee took place on 11 July 2025. The decision was taken regarding the appeal in or around 12/13 August and was communicated to the worker two days later on 15 August. The employer was on a scheduled shutdown for the first two weeks of August. Although the timeframe was not particularly lengthy, the worker appears not to have been given a time frame for the decision to issue. The employer should have managed the employees’ expectations during the process, noting that it would be closed for two weeks. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the employer manage employee expectations on the processing of appeals more assiduously, outlining time frames for communication at the outset.
Dated: 22-01-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Industrial Relations – communication of appeal decision on termination – management of expectation – Time frame for decision |