Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A complainant

An organisation

Representatives

 MacSweeney & Company Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)

CA-00054407-001

06/01/2023

The complainant submits that he is a worker under the Act and that he was unfairly dismissed.

The complainant submits that he was a worker as defined under the Act.  He submitted that he undertook duties that compensated him socially and psychologically, and that compensation does not always have to be financial.  He confirmed that he did not receive financial compensation, nor did he want or seek financial compensation for the tasks undertaken.  He submitted that the respondent had engaged employees and therefore was an employer as defined under the Act and that he was a worker.

He submitted that he commenced his role on 03/03/2022 and that his employment was terminated on 12/12/2022 and that the respondent had other employees.  At an AGM in December 2022, he asked questions regarding accounts and the Chairperson was unhappy with this and the complainant was advised on 12/12/2022 that his appointment was rescinded with immediate effect, and he had no recourse and there were no minutes to support this decision.  The complainant said he did not see himself as a volunteer and he undertook work that he was willing to do and that he was seeking an apology and to be reengaged.  He submitted that he wanted matters handled in a transparent manner to protect the individual rights of members of the Organisation as well as the restoration of his good name and desired to continue in his role, without financial compensation, for the good of the community.

It was submitted that the complainant was not an employee and never had been an employee and had never received or claimed remuneration from the respondent.   It was submitted that the complainant is a shareholder and/or member and had been asked in early 2022 to support the Chairperson with a project and he was asked to keep the board appraised of developments with these ad hoc tasks. No formal appointment, contract or other legal document governing the assignment was ever issued and there was no legal relationship as an employee.  It was outlined that the purpose of the 1969 Act is to investigate “trade disputes”, that the matter in front of the WRC was not a “trade dispute” as defined, and the complainant was not a “worker” as defined under the Act and the respondent was not a “employer” asdefined under the Act.  No formal appointment, contract or other legal document governing the assignment ever issued and he agreed to undertake the tasks assigned to him on a voluntary basis and was not paid and had no expectation that he would be paid.  The relationship between the complainant and the board broke down and the complainant was relieved of his role, with effect from 12/12/2024.

Case law cited included Roundabout Limited v Beirne [1959] IR 423.

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

The complainant submits that he was a worker as defined by the Act and that the respondent terminated his employment unfairly.  The respondent submits that the complainant is not a worker and that he was engaged to do tasks on a voluntary basis.

The definition of “trade dispute” under S. 3 of the 1946 Act, as amended by the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) reads:

“…any dispute between employers and workers which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms or conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person;

For a dispute to be a trade dispute it must involve a "worker". The term "worker" is defined by Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, as follows:-

“(1) …...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 determined 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 and the claimant was not a ‘worker’ for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Acts.

It would appear from all the circumstances of the case that the complainant was not engaged as a worker as defined by the Act, did not get payment for tasks undertaken and did not expect payment for tasks undertaken and I conclude I do not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute.

It would appear from all the circumstances of the case that the complainant was not engaged as a worker as defined by the Act and I conclude I do not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute. 

Jurisdiction, definition of a worker