ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000514
| ||
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Principal Social Worker | An Employer |
Representatives | Fórsa Trade Union | IBEC Aisling McDevitt |
Dispute:
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 - 00000514 | 31/07/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Date of Hearing: 10/05/2024
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.
Background:
The worker submits that the employer’s defined benefit pension scheme was not offered to him but was offered to others. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker submitted that he commenced employment in 1982 and then took a leave of absence for 2 years. He enquired about the defined benefit pension scheme in 1988 and was told he had to wait another year. He enquired again in 1989 and was verbally told that it was closed. It came to his attention that another worker was given the opportunity to join this scheme after he was advised it was closed. The worker had to join a less beneficial defined contribution scheme. The worker was seeking compensation for the loss. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that the matter was a collective issue, that the worker was not unique in being excluded and that the adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the dispute. It was further submitted that the worker was required to apply in writing for the defined benefit scheme and failed to do so and it is not a gift for the employer to give and he has not suffered loss as he is a member of a defined contribution scheme. It was submitted also that with the passage of time the request is unreasonable. The worker raised his dispute through the grievance procedure but the employer was unable to overturn their decision. . |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The worker outlined the unfairness of the employer in admitting another worker to the scheme but yet declined his request. The worker confirmed that he did not apply in writing to the scheme. I note the employer’s submission that there are other workers who were be impacted and therefore as it is a collective issue the dispute should not proceed.
Section 13. provides that —(1) (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with …..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.
Having considered all the submissions, I note that this dispute does not just impact this worker alone and as it would appear, therefore that this matter affects a group or body of workers I do not have jurisdiction to make a recommendation on this dispute and the dispute must fail. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having considered all the submissions, I note that this issue does not just impact this worker and as it would appear, therefore that this matter affects a group or body of workers I do not have jurisdiction to make a recommendation on this dispute and the dispute must fail. |
Dated: 24/06/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Body of workers, Collective issue, industrial relations act, pension |