AD1565

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/15/260

APPEAL DECISIONNO.AD1565

( r-43921/147900-ir-14/EH)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

FÁS/SOLAS

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner's r-43921/147900-ir-14/EH.

BACKGROUND:

2. This claim concerns the Worker's claim that a colleague made derogatory comments about him. This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 2nd April, 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-

'I recommend that [the Worker] accepts the employer's bona fides in this matter. I recommend that he accepts that the employer has through their Solicitors rejected these allegations. I recommend that he accepts the assurances given to him directly by the Director General that they understand the considerable hurt caused, that they assured him that he is a valued member of staff. I recommend that he accepts that the employer has gone as far as is practicable under the circumstances.'

On the 12th August, 2015 the Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th October, 2015. The following is the Court's Decision:

DECISION:

In this appeal the Claimant is seeking to raise matters that were referred to a Rights Commissioner and withdrawn at hearing. The Court’s jurisdiction under s13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 is founded upon a recommendation of a Rights Commissioner. There could be no such recommendation in relation to matters that were withdrawn and not dealt with by the Rights Commissioner. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal in so far as it relates to those matters.

On the matter in respect of which the Rights Commissioner has made a recommendation, the Court is also satisfied that the subject matter of the dispute is outside its jurisdiction.

The Court only role under the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 -2015 is to investigate a “trade dispute”. A trade dispute is defined by section 3 of the Act of 1946, as follows:

“the expression “trade dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and workers or between workers and workers connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of employment, of any person”

The dispute which the Claimant is seeking to have investigated fundamentally concerns alleged defamatory comments made by a third party, which the Claimant believes were imputed to him. That matter, including the response of the Claimant’s employer, is outside the ambit of a trade dispute as that term is defined by statute. Accordingly it cannot be investigated by the Court.

For these reasons the Court must decline to accept jurisdiction in this appeal.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Duffy
27th October, 2015______________________
CORChairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.