Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A State Body

Representatives

Forsa

Byrne Wallace

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00001093

08/02/2023

The Worker is seeking that the Respondent pay her fees for a course of study that she wishes to pursue. The Respondent is refusing to pay these fees however because they relate to studies that are neither relevant nor beneficial to their operations.

When the Worker joined the Employer, she had just started a BA in Law. The Employer paid the fees for the course which lasted three years, at a cost of €1,645 per year. The Worker then proceeded to commence an LLB in Law, which the Employer also paid for. The Worker also completed a revision course/entrance exam preparation course at a total cost of €1,350, which was also paid by the Employer.

The Worker’s colleague began work on the same day as her in 2017 and subsequently studied for the BL in Law in Kings Inns. The Employer agreed to pay the fees, subject to a limit of €3,500 each year. In 2022, the Worker applied to the Employer to cover the cost of her taking entrance exams that would lead to her participation in the BL degree, in the same way they had done for her colleague. A new Director joined the organisation in 2022 however and a unilateral decision was taken by the Director to change the criteria of the courses that would be paid by the Employer. The Worker stated that although this change in criteria resulted in her having her request for the fee payment for the BL course rejected, she was not given a reason for same.

The Worker disputed that the course of study was not relevant to the needs of the organisation because the Employer has a legal section. She further stated that all sections within the organisation are impacted by legislation and that legal questions arise on a continuous basis which means that the BL qualification would be both relevant and beneficial.

The Employer stated that they operate a scheme called the "Payment & Refund of Educational Fees Scheme" whereby workers may have their fees paid in full or in part for attendance at part-time courses that are relevant and beneficial to the work of the organisation and its workers. The aim of this scheme is to support the process of ongoing learning and development of the Employer’s workers.

In August 2022, the Worker applied for support under the scheme for a course of study, namely entrance exams that would lead to her participation in the BL degree, that was not relevant and beneficial to the work of the organisation. The Employer therefore declined to fund this. The Employer offered the Worker alternative options for study that would be relevant and beneficial to the work of the organisation as well as supporting her on-going training and development. She declined that offer.

The Employer stated that (a) the concession of this dispute would undermine the legitimate prerogative of the management to decide reasonably which courses of study are beneficial to the organisation, and (b) this particular course is not relevant and beneficial to the work of the Employer.

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

In the first instance, I should highlight that the WRC cannot tell an Employer that they are not free to issue legitimate or reasonable instructions. It is also worth stating that, as a public body, it is reasonable that the Employer adopts a prudent approach to managing taxpayers’ money and it is at their discretion to decide what is a relevant training course when considering what fees, if any, should be paid for what courses.

Considering the foregoing, I find that the decision made by the Employer not to pay the Worker’s fees for her Barrister at Law course was reasonable because they did not consider that such a qualification was relevant and would be of benefit to the organisation going forward.