ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052943
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Thomas Deevy | Kilkenny Limestone Quarries Ltd |
Representatives | Rachel Hartery SIPTU | Lisa Conroy Construction Industry Federation |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00064826-001 | 17/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that a Labour Court Recommendation resulted in a pay rise and retrospection of same. It was submitted that this was for the period of time worked by the complainant as retrospection went back two years. The complainant submitted that he was unfairly dismissed on the 19 January 2024, and that if he had not been dismissed, he would have received this payment which is owed to him and is substantial. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent denied that the complaint is regarding pay. It was submitted that following extensive negotiations and the use of the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court, a recommendation issued on 11 April 2024. The respondent submitted that the recommendation was balloted on by SIPTU members and was agreed to on 30 April 2024. The respondent submitted that the complainant was dismissed on 26 January and that the agreement falls outside the tenure of the employment relationship with the complainant. The respondent submitted that should the Adjudicator find that the complainant is entitled to retrospective pay, the calculation of the money due would be €3,170.23. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The parties were involved in pay negotiations which resulted in a Labour Court Recommendation that issued on 11 April 2024. The recommendation is silent on the issue of leavers and joiners. The recommendation itself notes that “Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to (a named) Court Secretary. Neither party seems to have made use of this option to submit an enquiry to the Court. Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, I am satisfied that it is not the function of the Adjudication Service of the WRC to impute or add a clause or clarification to a Labour Court Recommendation. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that it is not the function of the Adjudication Service of the WRC to impute or add a clause or clarification to a Labour Court Recommendation. |
Dated: 17-06-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act – Labour Court Recommendation – silent on Leavers and Joiners – not the function of the WRC to add or clarify a Labour Court Recommendation |