LCR23021

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 07 September 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 19 July 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

At the start of the hearing the Court felt it prudent to outline for the parties the nature of a hearing under s20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.  In particular, the fact that it was a voluntary process and that only the Worker is required to agree to be bound by the recommendation.  There is no law or legal rights involved in these cases, and evidence is not taken. 

The Court noted that at section 5 ‘brief summary of complaint’ on the complaint form, the Worker’s summary of complaint was “Breach of Non-adherence of the Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions Regulations 2022(also known as the 2022 Regulations) and in particular Regulation 10. My probation period was longer than 6 months”.

As the Regulations being relied on had been transposed into Irish law, any alleged breach of same would have to be addressed through the appropriate legislation.  The Court reiterated that s20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 was a forum for addressing a dispute between a Worker and their Employer and not for enforcing legal rights.

The Court outlined the options available to the Worker in respect of the complaint before the Court, 1) withdraw the complaint or 2) the Court would take the submissions as read and issue a recommendation stating that the complaint was misconceived. The Court took a short break to allow Mr Sean Quigley representative for the Worker to consult with his client.

 When the Court reconvened Mr Quigley informed the Court that his client’s preference was for the Court to issue a recommendation on the basis outlined by the Court. He informed the Court that he was not happy that the Court had not informed him earlier that he had referred his client’s complaint under the wrong Act, and that he would be getting legal advice about it.

 Peninsula on behalf of the Employer stated they were happy to proceed as outlined by the Court, but wanted to being to the Court’s attention to the fact that the Worker had lodged claims under various pieces of employment legislation, but had withdrawn same

 The Court taking into account the position as set out above, finds that the complaint is misconceived and cannot recommend concession of same.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
ÁM	______________________
23 July 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.