FULL RECOMMENDATION
| CD/23/56 | RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22741 |
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
DIVISION:
| Chairman: | Ms Connolly | | Employer Member: | Mr O'Brien | | Worker Member: | Ms Tanham |
SUBJECT:
1.UnpaidWages.
BACKGROUND:
2.This dispute concerns a complaint in relation to treatment by the company. The Claimant referred this case to the Labour Court on 2 February 2023 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 April 2023.
RECOMMENDATION:
A claim has been referred to the Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 relating to non-payment of monies to the Claimant in 2010 and 2011.
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 provides as follows: - 20. (1) Where the workers concerned in a trade dispute or their trade union or trade unions request or requests the Court to investigate the dispute and undertake or undertakes before the investigation to accept the recommendation of the Court under section 68 of the Principal Act in relation thereto then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act or in this Act, the Court shall investigate the dispute and shall make a recommendation under the said section 68 in relation thereto.
The Industrial Relations Act, 1946 defines a “Trade Dispute” in the following manner:
- the expression “trade dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and workers or between workers and workers connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of employment, of any person and includes any such dispute or difference between employers and workers where the employment has ceased,
The Industrial Relations Act, 1990 defines the word “worker” in the following manner:
- 23. (1) In the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 1976, and this Part, “ worker” means F3 a member of the Garda Síochána referred to in subsection (1A) and any person aged 15 years or more who has entered into or works under F4 or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract with an employer, whether the contract be for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, whether it be expressed or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it be a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour…”
Before the Court can consider to hear this claim, it has to consider whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case. The question that Court has to decide is whether the claimant is a "worker" within the definition contained in Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Ibec representative submitted that the claimant was not a “worker” within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946-2015 and that, as a result, the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed to hear the claim.
In response to question from the Court, the Claimant and his representative acknowledged that they had no evidence or documentation to support the claim that the Claimant was a “Worker” within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946-2015 for the period to which the claim relates.
The Court cannot act ultra vires its statutory powers. Accordingly, as the Claimant could not establish that he was a Worker within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts, the Court must decline jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
 | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court | | | | Katie Connolly | | OC | ______________________ | | 28 April 2023 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary. |
