LCR22873

CD/19/330

DECISION  NO. LCR22873

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES:

BEAUMONT HOSPITAL

(REPRESENTED BY IBEC)

AND

A WORKER

DIVISION

Chairman: Mr. Foley

Employer Member: Ms. Doyle

 Worker Member:  Ms. Tanham

SUBJECT

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00013621 (CA-00018268-001)

BACKGROUND

    The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 14 October 2019 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. On 4 September 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: "Having considered the submissions of both parties and the evidence adduced at the adjudication hearing, I do not recommend in favour of the complainant." A Labour Court hearing took place on 1 November 2023.
 

DECISION

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The matters before the Court in this industrial relations trade dispute relate to a range of events. The parties are unable to agree the factual circumstances underpinning any of the matters before the Court. 
One of the matters referred to the Court related to an industrial relations claim which, according to the parties, encroached on another matter which is the subject of a separate appeal to the Court under Employment Equality Legislation. The worker agreed at the hearing that this matter should not be the subject of a decision under the Industrial Relations Acts in those circumstances.
Following that clarification from the worker, the Court is asked to make a decision as regards a series of separate events / occurrences giving rise to separate disputations as follows:

1.    A set of events which occurred in 2014 / 2015.
2.    A set of events which occurred in 2016.
3.    A set of events which occurred in 2016 / 2017.
4.    A set of events which occurred in a period beginning in 2013.
5.    A set of events which occurred in 2018.

The worker submitted that in respect of three of these separate events / occurrences a total sum of compensation in the region of €30,000 approximately should be paid to her. In respect of the other two sets of events she did not seek compensation but rather sought what would amount to declarations by the Court that the employer had erred or misconducted itself.
The employer emphatically denied that it had erred in the manner suggested by the worker or misconducted itself in any way including in terms of the application of circulars or the operation of procedures in place at the material times.
The employment relationship between the parties ended in March 2019, over four years before the hearing of the Court. 
The efforts of the Court to convene a hearing were impeded by repeated requests for postponements and repeated indications of unavailability on the part of the parties.
The Court, at its hearing, made significant efforts to clarify to the parties its role under the Industrial Relations Acts which is articulated in the legislation as the formulation of a decision which will be binding on the parties. The Court emphasised that the decisions of the Court in this context are binding in the industrial relations sense but are not binding in law on any party. The Court emphasised that its role is to express an opinion in the form of a decision based on the merits of the trade dispute and the terms upon which it should be resolved. 
The Court has regard to the comprehensive disputation between the parties as regards practically all of the factual matrix underpinning their trade dispute; the fact that the matters before the Court relate to dates up to 10 years prior to the hearing of the Court; and has particular regard to the fact that the parties' employment relationship ended over four years before the hearing of the Court.
Taking all of these circumstances into account and taking account of the fact that the statute has the purpose of supporting voluntary dispute resolution as a means of resolving workplace conflict, the Court concludes that no practical industrial relations basis exists for a forensic analysis by the Court of the range of separate matters in dispute.
The Court decides that the parties should regard their extensive disputation on a range of discrete matters as not being capable of voluntary resolution. In those circumstances, the Court decides that both parties should, through the realistic exercise of mature, pragmatic industrial relations, regard their industrial relations trade dispute as resolved.

The Court so decides.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be in writing and addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly,  Court Secretary.