Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Electronics Manufacturer

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Tiernan Lowey BL instructed by  Matheson Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

28/09/2021

The Worker commenced employment on 12 February 2009 on a fix termed contract but now has a contract of indefinite duration. He is paid €644.32 gross; €520.00 net as an assembler. He is seeking a contract amendment to that of permanent employee.

The Employer contends that this is an attempt by the Worker to recreate an issue that has already been decided by the Labour Court.

The Worker commenced employment initially on a 23-month contract. The Employer appointed 15 general operators to permanent positions in 2013. On 17 July 2014 the worker commenced a new fixed term contract. On 11 December 2015 the Worker received a long-term flexible contract. This was  a contract of indefinite duration with what the Worker submits, was a €10 per week cut in pay.

On 18 August 2021 the Worker received an Employment Verification Letter from the Employer, on foot of a financial institution query, to say that his job was that of Assembler and that he was a permanent employee. Based on this letter he requested the permanent employee rate of pay.

The Worker submits that he received an email from the Employer through a data request on 15 May 2021 which he submits confirms his employment status moved from a FEW (flexible workforce employee) to a permanent contract. He submits that further documentation exists which confirm his employment status changed at that time.

The Worker is seeking a contract amendment that he is a permanent employee with the job title of Assembler, as existed in the 2013 permanent contracts.

The employer submits that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to investigate the claim for any and all of the following reasons:

The Employer submits that Section 13(3)(b)(i) of the IR Act provides that the WRC will not investigate an alleged trade dispute “if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute”. In the present instance, the Respondent refers to the  Labour Court Recommendation  where a similar claim by the same Worker in this case   found that: “although there is a differential in pay between LTF General Operatives and non-LTF General Operatives employed by the Company, this differential arises from a collective agreement entered into between the Company and SIPTU, which agreement was endorsed by a ballot of the Union’s membership. The Court finds that the dispute referred by the Worker is essentially an attempt on the part of a single worker to have a subsisting and valid Collective Agreement set aside. The dispute is, therefore, not well-founded and the Court rejects the Worker’s claim”. The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s 2021  claim under the Act relates to the same subject matter as investigated previously by the  Labour Court and so the WRC should decline to investigate it in light of the requirements of section 13(3)(b)(i) 3 of the IR Act.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969  provides in its relevant parts (the Rights Commissioner in this section is now substituted by the term  “Adjudication Officer”):

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 it to a rights commissioner….

…3(b) A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute—

(i) if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute, or

(ii) if a party to the dispute notifies the commissioner in writing that he objects to the dispute being investigated by a rights commissioner.

It is clear to me that the Worker’s dispute is a reconfigured previous dispute, which was already the subject of a Labour Court recommendation. His previous dispute before the Labour Court concerned pay parity with  permanent workers, whereas in this dispute he is seeking permanent status and hence he claims that it is a different dispute. I am satisfied that “permanent status” as presented to me in this dispute is the earlier parity claim in different wrapping. This is an obvious previous dispute which has been repeated before me and effectively rebranded.

For the reasons outlined above, and in accordance with section 13(3)(b)(i) of the Act, I find that the dispute is not well founded, and I reject the workers claim.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.