Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Pharmacist

Health Body

Representatives

David Field Forsa

Ger Connolly Mason Hayes & Curran

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

09/06/2021

The Employer previously submitted a submission to the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) on 8 April 2022. This submission replaces that submission following sight of the workers submission and in an effort to narrow the issues between the parties.

The worker is a Sessional Pharmacist employed on a sessional basis (i.e., employed on a continuing basis for specific engagements but paid at an hourly rate) in the Addiction Service of the employer since October 2007. She does not have a written contract of employment.

The Worker is one of a cohort of sessional pharmacists employed by the employer who has engaged with the mediation and adjudication services of the WRC concerning similar circumstances in pursuit of a claimed breach of contract and loss of earnings. This has relevance below.

The Worker’s complaint form and submission relates to a dispute as to the amount of compensation offered to her arising from the interpretation of a National Agreement for calculation of loss of earnings. While this submission will relate primarily to that disputed amount, it will also provide a background to the circumstances giving rise to the dispute.

Please see Preliminary Objection from Employer.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – JURISDICTION

The proceedings brought by the Worker pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 is subject to the limitation contained at Section 13(2) of the 1969 Act. It provides as follows:

“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 complaint advanced by the Worker relates to working hours/contracted hours and rates of pay of a body of workers (i.e., sessional pharmacists). It is respectfully submitted that the matters which the Worker seeks to complain of fall foul of the exclusion highlighted in bold above regarding disputes relating to a body of workers and therefore the WRC does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter.

To highlight the collective nature of this claim, the WRC already heard and adjudicated on some of these complaints in relation to a body of sessional pharmacists regarding the National Agreement for calculation of loss of earnings. The decision of those cases is the following ADJ-00027099, ADJ-00035878 and ADJ-00030029 (where one of these identical claims taken under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, was labelled “vexatious and entirely without merit” with “no chances of success”). Furthermore, it is expected, and the Respondent management is aware that there are other employees seeking to bring such claims.

In support of this position, we enclose a copy of the determination of the Labour Court in the National Museum of Ireland, Museum of Country Life v A Worker – Decision No. LCR2249. This case involved the interpretation of a piece of statutory legislation in relation to pension entitlements. While on the face of it the case concerned a singular issue, the recommendation itself would have had wider ramifications for all employees within this category of employment. In this case, the Labour Court held that:

“The Court is satisfied that the issue in dispute would require an interpretation of the Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004. Therefore, it is clear that the effect of such an interpretation is not confined to one individual. Potentially at least, it impacts on others whose circumstances are similar. In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that any decision that it would make in this case would, actually or potentially, affect the pay of a group of workers.

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 precludes an Adjudication Officer from investigating a trade dispute that is connected with the rates of pay of body of workers. For the reasons referred to above the Court is satisfied that the subject matter of this dispute comes within that prohibition.

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

Preliminary Objection.

I uphold the objection raised by the employer and find that I have no jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to hear the complaint as submitted.