ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001948
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Police Worker | Police Authority |
Representatives | Anna Rosa Raso ESA Consultants | Paul Hardy HR |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00001948 | 06/11/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Date of Hearing: 19/07/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute. Exactly the same issues as arise under this referral were presented by the worker in a series of complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The process of inquiring into those complaints concluded in November, hence the delay in issuing this recommendation.
Background:
The dispute referred for a recommendation concerns the loss of allowances and pay related to the classification of sick pay by the employer as ordinary sick pay. The worker contends that her absence should have been classified as an injury at work illness and therefore the terms of the scheme should have been applied differently from the ordinary scheme. The dispute documentation and the material for the complaints, including the WRC forms, both include references to delayed and unacceptable decision making by the employer. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker representative provided a detailed written submission in this case. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer’s side provided a written submission on the history of the matter in dispute. |
Conclusions:
As referenced by both parties the Labour Court issued a recommendation LCR22724 on a dispute involving the same parties. The subject matter was described as “compensation for lost pay and allowances”. The recommendation from the Labour Court noted the matter of payments was the subject of a separate complaint under the Payment of Wages Act before the Workplace Relations Commission. Those complaints are the subject of decisions issued in tandem with this recommendation The Court went on to recommend on the matter of the procedures and stated:
“In all the circumstances, the Court recommends, in the interest of the orderly conduct of industrial relations, that the parties should agree locally how the grievance procedure can, even at this remove in time, be reengaged so as to secure an outcome through those procedures to the worker’s grievance.”
The parties detailed the manner in which the procedures were followed as recommended by the Labour Court post their recommendation. I informed the parties at the hearing that in my view given the headline on the Court’s recommendation compensation for lost pay and allowances that the same matter was being referred back through the adjudication service under the Industrial Relations Act and it was not therefore a matter on which I could issue a recommendation on the substance of the dispute. I too noted as the Labour Court had that the same matters are before the WRC for adjudication under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The difference between the two issues is that of compensation for the delay on the employer side in completing the process and there may be some points post the Labour Court recommendation regarding the process used in the interim. However, I am satisfied that it would be inappropriate for me to interpret the Labour Court Recommendation or the process which occurred before the Labour Court to the extent that I would issue a recommendation on the substance of the issue here either in terms of lost pay and allowances or delays in the procedures. It is the position of the worker side that the matter of compensation and the payment of the injury at work scheme were not discussed by the Labour Court at their hearing. Again, I take the view that this may well be, and it is reasonable to conclude that it is because the Labour Court pointed to the fact that the Payment of Wages Act complaint was live and therefore as a matter of statute would have to be decided. Nonetheless, again it is not my role to interpret a recommendation of the Labour Court or to reopen any aspect of the case before them in that previous hearing outside of the issues under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. My recommendation in this matter is open to appeal to the Labour Court who decide as they see fit. They will no doubt take into account their own correspondence to the Complainants representative on 24 July-where she had apparently contacted the Court following the discussion at the hearing on 19 July, of which they no doubt have a copy. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The following section of the 1969 Industrial Relations Act does not permit me to investigate this matter further to the point of making a recommendation:
“13(3)(b) A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute—
(i) if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute”.
My opinion on the dispute presented is that I do not have jurisdiction to reinvestigate this matter
Dated: 11th December 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Dispute re classification of sick pay and related matters-jurisdiction |