FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RESTORATIVE JUSTICE SERVICES LIMITED REPRESENDED BY CATHY MCGRADY B.L., INSTRUCTED BY JOHN L. MULVEY & CO. SOLICITORS. - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Recommendation No r-157719-ir-15/JW.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim for paid maternity leave.
- The Union said the Claimant was told on commencement of her employment that her terms and conditions of employment would mirror those of her former employer.
The Employer said it did not provide a commitment for maternity leave pay to the Claimant in 2004.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 2nd November 2015 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- Based on the evidence presented at the Hearing, I recommend that the complaint is not well founded and therefore fails.
The Claimant has failed to establish that she has an implied right in her terms and conditions of employment which includes a provision for paid maternity leave benefit.
The claimant has received pay increases in line with Public Servants but this itself does not establish that she has a direct link to the pay and conditions of Public Servants.
- Based on the evidence presented at the Hearing, I recommend that the complaint is not well founded and therefore fails.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th December 2015 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th January 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant entered into a verbal contract in 2004 which mirrored her previous contract which is in line with the probation service.
2. The probation service has a provision that full salary is paid during Maternity leave and is a term and condition of employment.
3. Despite requests for a written contract of employment, this was not provided by the Employer.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is a voluntary organisation and is funded by the Probation Service on an annual basis. The Employer does not have the funding resources to pay maternity leave pay.
2. Accordingly the Employer could not provide a commitment for maternity leave pay to the Claimant or any other employee.
3. Terms and conditions are entirely under the remit of the Board of Management. There is no direct link between the terms and conditions of the Employer and those of the Public Sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the extent to which the terms and conditions under which the Claimant was originally employed by the employer are now in dispute. This confusion was created, in large measure, by the failure of the employer to provide the Claimant with a statement of her conditions of employment at the time she was employed or within a reasonable period thereafter.
Nevertheless, the Claimant has no automatic entitlement to paid maternity leave. The Court is not satisfied that in all the circumstances of this case, it could recommend that she be afforded such an entitlement.
Accordingly, the recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
21st January, 2016Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.