FULL DECISION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015 PARTIES: TESCO IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) AND A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SIPTU) DIVISION:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00035806 (CA-00046952-001).
The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 8 July 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. On 30 May 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: “For reasons set out above, I do not recommend concession of the worker’s claim.” A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 January 2024.
This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by the worker of an Adjudication Officer’s decision given under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 (the Act). The matter relates to the worker’s trade dispute arising from the fact that in each of two years, a pay increase was applied to him as a lump sum payment rather than as a pay round increase. At the hearing of the Court it became clear that the worker was one of a group of workers who received lump sum payments rather than pay round increases applied to pay in those years. The Act at Section 13 makes provision as follows: 13.(2) 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 employer submitted that the matter before the Court was one connected with the pay of a body of workers and that, as a result, the Court lacked jurisdiction to make a decision on the matter in dispute. The worker, through his Trade Union, accepted that the matter was in fact a collective matter connected with the pay of a body of workers. The Court has considered carefully the oral submissions of the parties on this point and has concluded that, having regard to the Act at Section 13, the within dispute is not comprehended by that section of the Act and the Court does not have jurisdiction to make a decision in the matter.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |