FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Various issues
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a complaint by the Worker, who is a qualified teacher, that between 2003 and December 2007 she provided home tuition to students and was paid at the lower unqualified rate. The Department's position is that it does not owe any money to the Claimant and any shortfall would instead have to be paid to the parents of the children to whom the service was provided. The Department contends that the Claimant was never employed by it.
On the 6th April 2009 the Claimant referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th June, 2010.
The Claimant agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Early-intervention tutors are primary teachers and therefore are paid at primary teacher part-time payment rates, however, prior to December 2007 tutors were reimbursed at a much lower rate and the arrears outstanding have yet to be paid.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There was never an employer/employee relationship between the parties and therefore it follows that there cannot be a trade dispute capable of being investigated by the Labour Court.
2. The Industrial Relations Acts are not the appropriate mechanism by which to reach a remedy in this case. It is clear from Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 that the person requesting an investigation must be a Worker as defined by Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was investigated by the Court in conjunction with the Claimant's appeal under the Protection of Employee (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. The facts giving rise to this complaint are identical to those grounding the Claimant’s claim under the Act of 2001 and are fully recited in Determination PTD101.
In this case the Department of Education and Science contends that there is no trade dispute between it and the Claimant that is capable of investigation by the Court under the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 –2004.
The Court is satisfied that the Claimant was never employed by the Department of Education and Science nor did she provide services to the Department as a Worker within the statutory meaning of that term.
A trade dispute can only exist between a Worker and an Employer. Consequently any dispute which exists between the Claimant and the Department is not a trade dispute and cannot be investigated by the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th June, 2010______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.