Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Supervisor

A Public Office

Representatives

SIPTU

 HR Manager

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 - 00002457

05/04/2024

The employee sees adjudication of a dispute relating to his reckonable service for the purposes of his pension entitlement.

The employee commenced employment on a seasonal basis in 1987 and continued until his retirement in 2023. He carried out supervisory duties at a world-renowned UNESCO site.

It was the employee's submission that he performed additional duties outside of his contracted months, which should be counted as reckonable service.

The employee outlined that he fell within the definition of a “worker” for the purposes of the Industrial Relations legislation. He referred the dispute to the Labour Court in error, which was the reason the dispute was not referred to the WRC until 5 April 2023. It was further submitted that he did not become aware of the internal appeal procedure until after he referred his dispute to the WRC, and he added that an appeal would be unlikely to overturn the decision.

The employer agreed that the work undertaken by the employee under his contracts was very valuable. A number of preliminary points were raised by the employer: the employee does not fall within the definition of a “worker” for the purposes of Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, the referral is out of time, and internal procedures were not exhausted.

It was further submitted that the employee’s dispute was statute-barred, as it was outside the six-month period provided for in the legislation.

The employer also relied on the Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure, which was not exhausted by the employee.

It was the employer’s submission that the employee was specifically asked not to engage in work outside of his contract months. He was paid for any meetings and work attended outside of that time, and in 2021 there was an agreement regarding his back pay from 2015–2019, which counted towards the calculation of his reckonable service.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties and find I do not have the jurisdiction to hear this dispute for the following reasons:

1.      The dispute is out of time as the employee retired from his position on 29 August 2023, but the WRC did not receive the dispute until 5 April 2024. No extension of time was applied for by the employee at the hearing, despite the issue being raised.

1. The employee failed to exhaust all internal dispute resolution procedures before referring the matter to the WRC.