ADJ-00024953

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Health Care Provider

Representatives

In person

Employee Relations Department

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00031759-001

22/10/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00031759-002

25/02/2020

This dispute concerns a claim by the worker to be assigned one designated base for the purposes of claiming travel and subsistence payments.

The worker contends that other comparable colleagues have one designated base and are in a position to the claim travel and subsistence payments when working away from their base. The worker contends that as he is considered to have dual bases, he is not permitted to claim travel and subsistence payments in the same way as his colleagues. The worker contends that he accepted proposals for the settlement of the dispute in 2015 on the understanding that dual bases would be introduced for all staff both locally and nationally which was not done. The worker stated that when he learned of this, he sought to have the matter addressed again locally and through the WRC in 2017.

The employer contends that this issue was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the WRC in 2015 and a proposal for the full and final settlement of the dispute was accepted by both parties. The employer contends that the worker submitted the issue again to the conciliation services of the WRC in 2017 and was informed that while the 2015 dispute could not be re-opened, a new claim could be referred to the employer at local level.

The employer stated that it considered the claim lodged at local level in 2017 but as there had been no change in circumstances since the issue was resolved in 2015, the employer stated that there was no basis to revisit the issue.

I have given careful consideration to the issues raised in this referral and in particular the fact that the dispute, as it relates to the individual worker, was previously dealt with at a WRC conciliation conference and an agreement was reached in full and final settlements of the worker’s claim at that time.

In Louth County Council v A Worker LCR 21861, issued on 8th January 2019, the Labour Court stated as follows:

The Court must have regard to fact that the matter before it is an industrial relations matter. The effective conduct of industrial relations requires a degree of pragmatism on the part of parties to trade disputes. There cannot be any industrial relations reality to the proposition that a decision of an Adjudication Officer can be accepted by both parties, implemented in full and subsequently appealed.

The Court therefore upholds the decision of the Adjudication Officer and the appeal accordingly fails.

While the matter before the Labour Court in LCR21861 was an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s decision, in my view, the principles remain the same. In 2015, proposals from the WRC Conciliation Officer were accepted for the resolution of the dispute. It is unrealistic, from an industrial relations perspective that a worker accepts proposals for the full and final settlement of a dispute only to resubmit a new claim to the employer on the same issue at a later date.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I do not recommend in favour of the worker’s claim.