LCR22982

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00044837 (CA-00055501-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 5 March 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 26 January 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

 “In the circumstances, I recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the parties set up an adhoc working group with an independent Chairperson to undertake a comprehensive review of the terms and conditions of employment of Hospital Chaplains having regard to the 24hour nature of the service provided by this group of workers. I recommend the review be completed within a time frame of 6 months and that any recommendations emanating from the group be implemented within 12 months from the date of this recommendation”

 A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 June 2024.

DECISION:

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal of a decision of an Adjudication Officer given under the Industrial Relations Acts. The worker is a chaplain employed by a hospital, the employer. The Adjudication Officer decided that she lacked jurisdiction to make a recommendation in the matter but nevertheless appears to have made a Recommendation in respect of the terms and conditions of employment of hospital chaplains.

It is common case that the terms and conditions of employment of the worker are governed by a national circular of the funder of the employer, the HSE. That circular is in place since 2006. The HSE was not represented before the Court.

The trade union submits that various other circulars of the HSE should be applied to the worker so as to ensure that he receives overtime and other allowances which are paid to the HSE Grade VI; the pay scale to which grade his rate of pay is aligned.

It is common case that chaplains are employed by a number of hospitals across the health system. The employer submitted that all such workers are employed on the terms and conditions of employment set out in the 2006 HSE national circular.

It is clear to the Court that any concession of the worker’s claim would have implications for the pay of a body of workers. This is so because any recommendation on this Court to concede the claim of the worker would be a recommendation to alter the terms of the HSE 2006 national circular.

The Court notes the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 which, in relevant part, provide 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.

It is clear to the Court that the trade dispute before the Court is a dispute connected with the pay of a body of workers; being the body of workers whose terms employment are governed by the 2006 HSE national circular.

In those circumstances, the Court decides that it lacks jurisdiction in the matter which lies before it on appeal.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
FC	______________________
10 June 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.