ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000097
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Childcare Worker | A School |
Representatives | Victoria Stephens SIPTU | Rosemary Mallon, BL, instructed by , Mason Hayes & Curran |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00000097 | 21/04/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 10/11/2022
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
The worker was employed as a childcare worker with the employer. Her employment ended at the end of January 2022 at which time she was made redundant. She is seeking to have a period of lay off paid for by the employer. |
Summary of Workers Case:
It was submitted on behalf of the worker that the employer should have a clause in the workers contract of employment which would specifically provide for lay-off and that the employee would not be entitled to any payment during this time. The worker in this dispute did not have any contract. Following some discussions with the employer the worker was paid €3,005.50 in July 2021 and did not receive any further payments after that time. The worker was laid off in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no contractual provision for lay-off in the worker in this dispute, so she was on “informal lay-off”. The worker was in receipt of the TWSS payment and when this payment ceased, she was not entitled to any further State payments. The trade union believes that there were two distinct lay off periods, one formal and the second informal and that the worker should be paid as she was unable to access any State payments during the informal lay off. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer position is that a claim lodged by the trade union was settled and paid in July 2021. This settlement cannot be extended or used to pay the worker for the period outlined by the trade union. The trade union accepts that the worker was not paid during the summer break from June to August and the worker was on formal lay off from September until a redundancy process was completed. The employer rejects the claim that the worker is due or entitled to any further payments. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The trade union on behalf of the worker is seeking a payment of additional money as the worker was not entitled to the State payment when her TWSS payments ceased. The trade union is seeking to have a payment made on the basis of a previous settlement arrangement between the parties.
The employer is of the view that the previous settlement was concluded, and it has no onward application in this case. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I am unable to make a recommendation in favour of the worker in this dispute.
Dated: 6th December, 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Lay-off. |