ADJ-00030952

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030952

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Retired Worker	A Local Authority

Representatives

Frank McDonnell Limerick Council of Trade Unions

James Clune, HR.

Complaint/Dispute:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Industrial Relations Act 1969	CA-00041475-001	08/12/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/04/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the IndustrialRelations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.

Background:

The Complainant seeks adjudication on his dispute with the Respondent about his complaint that he has been penalised for not joining the pay transfer of wages to bank account system.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant’s representative stated that there should not be an impediment to the case being adjudicated upon as the Respondent did not object to the hearing and in a previous case the Labour Court considered a similar situation. The dispute concerns the withholding of an increase in wages and back money which the Complainant claimed and was successful in a case taken to a Rights Commissioner. The Labour Court subsequently confirmed that decision but deleted the compensation attached. The Complainant wishes to have the case revisited in light of new evidence he discovered in a letter from the Respondent dated 14th April 1999.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent believes that the Adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute. It relies on the provisions of Section 13 3 (b) (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 which provides that a Rights Commissioner (Workplace Adjudicator) shall not investigate a trade dispute if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

It is the position of the Respondent that the substantive matters which are the subject of the complaint formed the basis of a complaint to the WRC in 2011; two WRC hearings were heard in 2011 following which Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-091791-ir-10/pob was issued. The complaint was subsequently considered by the Labour Court who issued a recommendation on this matter AD 1223. The Respondent has as a matter of fact paid an amount of €1,017.67 as per this recommendation which was accepted by the Complainant.

In support of its position the Respondent wishes to state that what the Complainant is seeking to do is to reopen matters which were the subject of a recommendations by the Labour Court and therefore contrary to the provision of Section 13 3 (b) (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and we therefore believe that the Adjudicator does not have jurisdiction in relation to this complaint.

Recommendation:

Time limit in relation to trade dispute where retired worker is party to dispute.

Section 26A of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 as amended provides:

“26A. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other enactment, but subject to subsection (2), an adjudication officer or the Court shall not investigate a trade dispute to which a worker who has ceased to be employed by reason of his or her retirement is a party unless—

(a) the dispute was referred to the Commission for conciliation within a period of 6 months from the date on which the worker’s employment ceased, or the date on which the event to which the dispute relates occurred, whichever is the earlier, or

(b) the dispute was referred to an adjudication officer or, as the case may be, the Court within the period referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an adjudication officer or, as the case may be, the Court may extend the period referred to in that subsection by a further period not exceeding 6 months where the adjudication officer or the Court is satisfied that the failure to refer the dispute within the period referred to in subsection (1) was due to reasonable cause.

(3) The Commission or the Court shall not investigate a trade dispute to which a worker referred to in subsection (1) is a party where the dispute is subject to investigation by the Pensions Ombudsman.”

The Complainant in this case retired and his employment ceased on 1st March 2015. This is some five years and nine months before the referral of his dispute which was received on 8th December 2020. I find that I cannot make any recommendation on this dispute as the law provides.

Dated: 23-06-22

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Key Words:

Dispute referred by retired worker out of time.