Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Volunteer in the Civil Defence

A Local Authority

Representatives

  Self-represented

LGMA

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00051142-001 CA-00051142-002

14/06/2022

The complainant is a volunteer with he Civil Defence and is unhappy with the manner in which a grievance he had was conducted relating to a disciplinary process.

The initial hearing was on 20th December 2022.  Due to the unavailability of the respondent representative I agreed to adjourn that hearing.  From my reading of the complaint made I had concerns about the status of the complainant as a volunteer rather than an employee and how that might impact my jurisdiction to hear the complaint.  I asked both parties to make submissions to me on this point in advance of any future hearing. Submissions were received from both parties.

From the outset of his career in Civil Defence (CD), the roles and responsibilities which applied while on duty were reiterated time and time again. He was told that while on duty and in uniform, he was classified the same as employees of the Local Authority and as such had to adhere to all policies and procedures laid out by the Local Authority.

Local policies such as the social media policy reference all staff, and at no point references volunteers at any stage. Under the Civil Defence act 2012, the CD register is appointed and regulated by the Local Authority giving them responsibility for all involved. Under the Department of Defence White paper 2015, the Civil Defence Officer (CDO) is responsible for the day-to-day management in the Local Authority and is appointed as an employee in the Local Authority where disciplinary procedures are the responsibility of the CDO. Under the code of conduct the CDO is responsible and has a duty of care to all volunteers to ensure that the code of conduct is adhered to.

 The fact that volunteers are covered driving state vehicles by the state claims agency while on duty is relevant as one must be an employee to be insured and no distinction is made between volunteer or employee.

The Civil defence is a national state agency and a branch of the department of defence and as such l it is incumbent to seek resolution through state channels.

The WRC does not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute as the claimant is precluded from bringing his case to the WRC by virtue of his employment status given that the appropriate definition of the term "worker" for the purpose of the Industrial Relations Act as set out at Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 is:

“worker” means any person aged 15 years or more who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer.

The claimant in this instance is a volunteer with the Civil Defence. This issue of jurisdiction for Civil Defence Volunteers has previously arisen in the Labour Court and the Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the substantive case as volunteers do not operate under either a contract of service or a contract for service in respect of the Civil Defence.

Preliminary issue – jurisdiction

Having considered the submission of both sides, and having reference to the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 - 2004, I do not find that the Claimant was operating under either a contract of service or a contract for service in respect of the respondent. I have also considered Labour Court Recommendation LCR18371 (2005) which addressed the issue of the status of volunteers within the Civil Defence.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant is not a worker within the meaning of the Acts and therefore I have no jurisdiction to hear the substantive case.

I find that the complainant is not a worker for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969-1990 and therefore I do not have jurisdiction to investigate the complaint

Employment status