For some workers, winning compensation at the Workplace Relations Commission is just the start of another legal journey

When Uchenna Jude Dyke was told he couldn’t keep his job in a residential care home, he thought he would appeal that decision, he says. 

He had worked there for eight months as a social care worker, he said, recently. He loved it, he said.

His bosses at Rehab Group, though, said his performance was not up to scratch. They ended his contract. 

Dyke had “five (5) working days” to appeal the decision, said his termination letter.

And he did, within what he judged to be five working days. But his bosses said he was late. They didn’t consider his appeal.

Dyke says he thought he had five days excluding weekends and public holidays. But his employer later said every single day counted – because they’re always open and working.

That was unreasonable, said a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudication officer in January 2024.

“This however raises the question why use the phrase working day at all?” wrote the officer, Penelope McGrath.

McGrath wrote that Dyke’s employers never acknowledged his point of view. “None of them could accept that there was room for flexibility”. 

She recommended Rehab Group pay Dyke €1,000 as compensation within four weeks. But they have not paid, says Dyke.

He can’t turn to the District Court for an enforcement order because the decision was made under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, which makes it an unenforceable recommendation.  

A spokesperson for Rehab Group said on Tuesday that it fully respects the role of WRC and its recommendations and rulings. 

“Rehab intends to honour the award recommended by the WRC in this case and awaits the necessary engagement to proceed,” they said.

But they didn’t say what these necessary engagements are.

Even when its rulings are enforceable, claiming WRC awards can be an uphill battle with extra legal fees for workers, says Barry Crushell, an employment lawyer at the law firm Crushell & Co. “It’s a huge issue.”

The WRC is a valuable body with procedures that are easy to navigate, said Crushell. But it’s time to give it greater powers to enforce its rulings without turning to the District Court, he says. 

A spokesperson for the Department of Employment said it doesn’t have any plans to change current laws to this end at the moment.

Fight for the money 

In 2024, the WRC issued just over 2,700 adjudication decisions, says its annual report for the year.  

But it’s not easy to find out how many of those were paid with no hassle, and track how many people went to the District Court for help claiming their awards.

A spokesperson for the Courts Service said it doesn’t have those figures to hand. 

The WRC offers some support to workers struggling to claim compensation from ex-employers, through its “civil enforcement section”. 

The section reviews applications for legal help from workers who weren’t paid. It accepts some and takes their cases to the District Court.

Since 2020, the WRC has assigned 78 cases to its internal lawyers to seek court orders against uncooperative employers, said a spokesperson for the Department of Employment.

Workers got their money in 18 of those cases, official figures show. “[Fourteen] before the Order was granted and [four] after,” the spokesperson said.

Seven cases led to the prosecution of avoidant employers, and 47 cases are still ongoing, the spokesperson said. “In [six] cases it was not possible to proceed with actions,” they said.

Aside from the WRC going to court for enforcement decisions, workers sometimes represent themselves – or hire private lawyers. 

Wendy Lyon, partner and solicitor at Abbey Law, represented a masseuse who was pressured to do sexual favours for clients and dismissed for refusing.

The ruling in the case, which won one of WRC’s highest awards, dates back to November 2023.

But she had to get an enforcement order for her client, Lyon said. Like Dyke, Lyon’s client is an immigrant worker. 

Michael O’Brien, a regional officer at the trade union UNITE, says it’s common with big awards also for employers to just wind down a business to avoid paying.

“So, the company no longer exists, and there you have difficulty getting an enforcement order if the person’s no longer trading,” he said.

Symbolic win, real evidence 

Some workers still can’t claim their awards at all because the decisions were issued under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

That section covers disputes over rates of pay, hours and holidays. 

It also covered the award to Dyke, the man who wasn’t given time to appeal his dismissal.

He had no idea, going into it, that the recommendation wouldn’t be binding, he says. “Oh no, I wasn’t aware.”

He had wanted to let it go, rather than take a case at the WRC, he says, but his trade union caseworker encouraged him to push through.

And he did want to be heard, he says. 

O’Brien, the regional officer at Unite the Union, says the only time unenforceable orders are more than symbolic vindication is when immigrants with work permits – and so limited rights to live here – unfairly lose their jobs.

The Department of Employment aims to stop workers like that from losing their statuses by offering a “reactivation” work permit.

But people must submit paperwork to the Department of Justice first to get a letter supporting their work permit application to the Department of Employment.

WRC rulings are valuable proof for people that they are telling the truth, says O’Brien.

O’Brien said he recently helped a Filipino guy prepare his reactivation application. “We evidenced it by saying we had a WRC case.”

A win I can believe in 

Dyke says it hurts him that he never got an apology from his employer. He’s happy that this comes across in the ruling, though, Dyke said.

But somewhere in the back of his mind, he still wrestles with feelings of invalidation, he says. 

A spokesperson for Rehab Group said it values the “integrity of the WRC process and remains committed to fair and respectful treatment of all current and former employees”.

After the case concluded, Dyke says he grappled with profound depression and a sudden serious eye disease. “I was in and out of hospital.”

His termination letter acknowledges that he was friendly and got on well with people. “We would like to take this opportunity to commend your inter-personal skills with residents and staff,” it says.

It outlines things like alleged poor note-taking, failure to complete certain training courses, and not sticking to residents’ diets as reasons for his termination. 

Dyke says the dismissal had left a gap in his CV, and he struggled to explain it at job interviews. “It was like an invisible criminal record.”

He believed he had a shot at overturning it had they let him appeal, said Dyke. 

That they said he misunderstood the meaning of working days made him feel small. “Like you have to go if we’re telling you to go.”

It was worrying, wrote the WRC adjudicating officer, that Dyke’s employer’s failed “to accept the desirability (from the Complainant’s point of view) of having an independent consideration of the review and final decision to terminate the employment”.

“To my mind there should be no fear of an independent scrutiny,” she wrote.

Unable to claim his award, he has now compiled medical records, sought advice from the Injuries Resolution Board and is planning to pursue another case at the Circuit Court, he said.

“Because it was a knock on my health, it was a dent in my records,” he said.