ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: Adj00038929
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Airline worker | Airline Services Company |
Representatives | Dermot O'Loughlin | Ciaran Loughran IBEC |
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 | CA-0004009-003 | 27/09/2020 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Date of Hearing: 14/02/2022/reconvened 18/05/2021
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 complainant was "temporarily" laid-off in late March 2020. The worker contends that he unfairly selected for lay-off as he neither agreed nor was consulted on the criterion to be applied. The worker stated that his experience is greater than many of those who were kept on in a full-time basis. It also is alleged that the workers personal belongings have been removed from his assigned locker without his permission. The company has failed to provide any meaningful communication throughout this on-going period resulting in inordinate stress and anxiety for the worker. As a result of all the above the worker continues to experience financial hardship throughout this temporary lay-off period. |
Preliminary Matter
A number of matters detailed in this referral under the Industrial Relations Act overlap with complaints made under the Terms and Conditions of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
The Labour Court has determined that where claims are made that rely on the same facts but under different heads of legislation that amounts to parallel claim where in effect double compensation is being sought.
I note that the Labour Court in Sorenson v TeagascEDA 1723, refused to allow facts which were argued in a claim pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts in circumstances where they had been put before the WRC and Labour Court in a claim under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003.
In essence the complaint brought under the Industrial Relations Act is the same claim that has been determined under the Terms and Conditions of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 as it states that the treatment complained of is lack of consultation concerning layoff and seeks financial compensation arising from lack of consultation.
Separately the Industrial Relations Act 1969 states:
13.—
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer
The claim as framed is connected to hours or time of work of a body of workers and therefore I declare that I have no jurisdiction to hear the matters referred to me under this claim. This arises as several hundred employees were on layoff.
I do note that a specific matter regarding the removal of items from the worker’s assigned locker without his permission. That is a matter that should be separated out from the body of this dispute that is now referred to me, as the substance of the dispute as described categorically IS connected to hours and time work of a group of workers. In these circumstances I have no jurisdiction to make a recommendation.
Summary of Workers Case:
See preliminary matter |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
See preliminary mater |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
In essence the complaint brought under the Industrial Relations Act is the same claim that has been determined under the Terms and Conditions of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 as it states that the treatment complained of is lack of consultation concerning layoff and seeks financial compensation arising from lack of consultation. Separately the Industrial Relations Act 1969 states: 13.— (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer The claim as framed in fact does relate to a body of workers; that is connected to hours or time of work of such a body, and therefore I declare that I have no jurisdiction to hear the matters referred to me under this claim. I do note that a specific matter regarding the removal of items from the workers assigned locker without his permission. That is a matter that should be separated out from the body of this dispute that is referred to me, as the substance of the dispute as described categorically refers to hours and times of work concerning a body of workers. In these circumstances I have no jurisdiction to make a recommendation on this dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I decline to hear this dispute as I have jurisdiction to do so as the matters substantially relate to a group of workers that relate to hours of work and to times of work. In these circumstances I have no alternative but to decline jurisdiction.
Dated: 30th June 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No Jurisdiction |