ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002727
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Volunteer in the Civil Defence | A Local Authority |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Local Authority Human Resource Management Directorate |
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 - 00002727 | 06/06/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Date of Hearing: 19/09/2024
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.
This matter was heard by way of a remote hearing on the 19th September 2024 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I received and reviewed documentation and submissions in advance of the hearing.
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the hearing took place in private and the parties are not named. They are referred to as “the Claimant” and “the Respondent”.
Background:
The Claimant is a volunteer with the Civil Defence and is unhappy with the manner in which a grievance he has was dealt with by the Respondent. |
Summary of Claimant’s Case:
The Claimant is a volunteer with the Civil Defence. He submitted a grievance by email on the 25th March 2024. The Claimant is dissatisfied with the handling of his complaint and, having exhausted the internal dispute resolution procedures, he referred the within dispute to the WRC. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute as the Claimant is not an employee of the Respondent but is a Civil Defence Volunteer and is therefore precluded from bringing his case to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act 1946 (as amended). |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
Preliminary issue – Jurisdiction
The Respondent submitted that the Claimant does not have standing to bring this dispute to the WRC and the WRC does not have jurisdiction to investigate the dispute as his status does not comply with the definition of a “worker”. Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 defines “worker” as follows: “worker” means any person aged 15 years or more who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer” It is common case that the Claimant is a volunteer with the Civil Defence. Having considered the submission of both sides and having regard the Industrial Relations Acts and the definition of “worker” in section 23 of the 1990 Act I do not find that the Claimant was operating under either a contract of service or a contract for service in respect of the Respondent. I have also considered the Labour Court Recommendation in Kilkenny Civil Defence v. A Claimant LCR18371 which addressed the issue of the status of volunteers within the Civil Defence. Accordingly, I find that the Claimant is not a worker within the meaning of the Acts and therefore I have no jurisdiction to investigate the dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I find that the Claimant is not a worker for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 (as amended) and as such I do not have jurisdiction to investigate the dispute.
Dated: 06TH of January 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Key Words:
|