Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Painter

County Council

Representatives

Jay Power of SIPTU

Keith Irvine of LGMA

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00040868-001

09/11/2020

The worker raised a dispute against the employer under the Industrial Relation Act 1969 that he had suffered severe financial loss when forced to move sections.

The employer raised a preliminary issue that I do not have the jurisdiction to investigate this dispute as it has already been investigated by the Labour Court and a recommendation issued. The refer to section 13(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 which states ”A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute – (i) If the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute.”

The Labour Court considered a dispute between the parties and issued Decision No. LCR22087 on 30 August 2019. The worker, through his representative, said that dispute related to the worker being made to revert from a long-term role as Acting Assistant Foreman of Works to his substantive role as Painter. Whilst, this dispute relates to the losses he incurred when he was forced to move to a new section. The employer says the losses were considered by the Labour Court in 2019.

In LCR22087 the Labour Court dealt with the grade reversion but also concluded “The Worker’s claim for compensation is likewise not well-founded.” I have been provided with a copy of the claim for compensation provided to the Labour Court in 2019. It is very similar to that provided as part of this dispute. The differences relate to the rates paid to an Acting Assistant Foreman of Works and that of a Painter. This dispute is about losses the worker says he incurred in moving sections. Therefore, as stated during my hearing, the worker, if he had remained in his previous section, would have been paid the money he is claiming, albeit at lower rates.

The submission made by the worker’s representative to the Labour Court in 2019 refers to him working in the new section and, therefore, I have to conclude the Labour Court, in considering the compensation were aware the worker had moved section, as he could not have made that claim if he was staying in the same section where he had worked as an Acting Assistant Foreman of Works.

Given all the facts I have set out above I conclude that “the court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute” and I therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate this trade dispute.

For the reasons stated above I find that I do not have the jurisdiction to investigate the claim.

No jurisdiction