Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Voluntary Worker

A Professional Accreditation Organisation

Representatives

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 - 00002602

07/05/2024

The claimant contends that she is a ‘worker’ who has a ‘trade dispute’ within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts. The respondent, a professional accreditation body, submits that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute as the claimant is not ‘employed’ by the organisation and the matter does not concern a ‘trade dispute’.

The worker outlined that she was an accredited member of the professional accreditation organisation from December 2012 until her membership and accreditation was rescinded in April 2024. The worker believes that the rescinding of her membership by the accreditation body was as a direct result of her raising concerns with the Board of Directors regarding decisions taken by the organisation. The worker outlined that the organisation was not her employer, but she contends that she is a ‘worker’ for the purposes of s 23 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 as she worked in a voluntary capacity on the Accreditation Committee of the organisation since 2016. The Committee met four times a year. The worker was not remunerated in any way for this work. The worker is employed full-time in the public sector. It is open to the worker to seek membership and accreditation from an alternative accrediting body.

The organisation is not the claimant’s employer. The organisation is comprised of volunteers, and the claimant was a voluntary worker. She does not come within the definition of a ‘worker’ for the purposes of s 23 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 . The claimant participated in the organisation’s activities on an entirely voluntary basis. There was no consideration for this work. Further, the subject of the dispute is not a ‘trade dispute’ for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Acts. The claimant did not comply with the terms for renewal of membership. The WRC has no jurisdiction over membership and accreditation of an accrediting body.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The claimant referred her dispute to the WRC under s 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 (“the 1969 Act”). The definition of a trade dispute for the purposes of the 1969 Act is that contained in s 3 of the 1946 Act, which provides:

“In this Act the expression “trade dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and workers or between workers and workers connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of employment, of any person and includes any such dispute or difference between employers and workers where the employment has ceased.”

In A Healthcare Provider and A Claimant (LCR19642), the Labour Court outlined that there are two essential components to the definition of a trade dispute under s 3 of the 1946 Act:

(i)               that there be the correct parties to the dispute, and

(ii)              that the dispute concerns the correct subject matter.

The term ‘worker’ is defined under s 23 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 as:

“(1) In the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 1976, and this Part, “worker” means a member of the Garda Síochána referred to in subsection (1A) and any person aged 15 years or more who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract with an employer, whether the contract be for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, whether it be expressed or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it be a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour . . . .”

In Kilkenny Civil Defence and A Claimant (LCR18371) the Labour court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to investigate a dispute involving a voluntary worker as the claimant was not engaged under a contract of service or a contract for service. Accordingly the Court found that the claimant was not a ‘worker’ for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Acts.

I can only investigate a dispute which is a ‘trade dispute’ as defined under s 3 of the 1946 Act. This requires that there be the correct parties to the dispute (i.e., employer/s and worker/s). The parties to this dispute are a voluntary worker and a professional accreditation body. The claimant acknowledged that she was not engaged under a contract of service or a contract for services with the respondent. Therefore she does not come within the meaning of a ‘worker’ for the purposes of s 23 of the 1990 Act (and consequently s 3 of the 1946 Act). Therefore, I conclude I do not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I do not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute referred under s 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

No jurisdiction.