LCR23083

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047048 (CA-00058001 IR-SC-0001588)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 28 July 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 November 2024.

DECISION:

The worker in this case is a Chargehand in charge of cleaners. She seeks that her rate of pay be brought into line with the generic Chargehand rate applicable to workers elsewhere in the County Council.

SIPTU, on behalf of its member, submits that the worker’s role and duties are equivalent and at times exceeds those carried out by outdoor “Chargehands” in terms of level of responsibilities. SIPTU has engaged with the Council since 2021 to proactively resolve this issue directly. That engagement has been unsuccessful.

SIPTU seeks that the Court recommend that the disparity in pay between the worker and outdoor chargehands is addressed with retrospective application of the difference in pay rates to when the matter was first raised with Council in November 2021.

The Council’s position is that the Court should not hear the appeal as the worker has never raised any formal grievance with the Council, or utilised or exhausted the Grievance Policy in any way.

Notwithstanding that fact, it asserts that there is no basis to the claim as the roles are separate and distinct, the claim is a cost increasing and not permitted under the Public Service Agreement, and should the Court find in favour of the worker, any appointment could only be made by competition.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by both sides.

Both parties confirmed to the Court that there are well established procedures in place in this employment to address individual and collective workplace disputes. SIPTU confirmed to the Court that the dispute on appeal is a dispute relating to an individual issue, and that the internal dispute procedures were not exhausted prior to referral of this matter to the WRC.

The Court expressed its concern to the parties about the manner in which this dispute had progressed firstly to the Workplace Relations Commission and on appeal to this Court without exhausting those internal procedures.

The long-standing position of the Labour Court is to uphold agreed and established dispute resolution procedures. In all of the circumstances, the Court cannot uphold the Worker’s claim. The Court finds that the Worker’s complaint fails as she did not exhaust the internal grievance process. The Court recommends that the matter be expedited by the parties in a prompt fashion in line with their established procedures.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connollly
ÁM	______________________
9th December 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.