Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Andrea Cleere SIPTU

Eamonn Hunt

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-00033316-001

20/12/2019

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The parties agreed that the factual nature revolving around this dispute was set out in their respective submissions.  The worker was a retained firefighter who moved on to become a full-time service.

The worker submitted that the present dispute concerns the non-provision of annual leave entitlements in the period February 2014 to December 2017.

The worker submitted that although there was a collective dispute concerning the annual leave entitlements of Part-Time Firefighters, he is aware of other firefighters who have moved to the full-time service who were paid in respect of outstanding leave entitlements.  Accordingly, the worker contends that this dispute does not relate to a body of workers.

The worker is seeking a recommendation that he be paid compensation for the failure to afford him his contractual leave entitlement.

The employer submitted that the Complaint Form stated that “The complainant is a full-time firefighter and was previously a retained firefighter (employment was continuous). From February 2014 to December 2017 he was not afforded his annual leave entitlements. The employer refuses to hear a grievance. The complainant will seek a recommendation for compensation”

The employer submitted that this issue affects more than simply the complainant and that section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 states that

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 it to a rights commissioner.

The employer submitted that as the complaint relates to not receiving his annual leave entitlements, and that this entitlement relates to a group of workers, the worker may not refer it to an adjudicator for a recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.   Although the worker submitted that this entitlement only relates to him, I am satisfied that the entitlement to annual leave in general relates to a group of workers.  The worker submitted that he was aware of individuals who had been treated differently and while this was not in dispute, I am not satisfied that because an individual was treated differently to the worker, it renders the whole issue of annual leave an individual one.

I am satisfied that the complaint referred to me relates to the annual leave entitlement of the worker and may also be applicable to a group of his co-workers.  Having considered all the written and oral submissions from both parties, I find that this renders the dispute outside the remit of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

I recommend that where an issue arises under the Employment Rights legislation, it should be pursued under the appropriate legislative remedy having regard to the timeframes set down in National and European legislation and caselaw.

Industrial Relations – annual leave – group of workers – outside the remit