ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00057586
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Government Body |
Representatives |
| Katherine McVeigh BL instructed by Eversheds Sutherland |
Disputes:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 |
CA-00070084-001 | 16/11/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00070084-002 | 16/11/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00070084-003 | 16/11/2021 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Date of Hearing: 30/09/2022, 03/03/2023, 08/01/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the disputes. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged.
Background:
The worker submits that her disputes included failures by the employer to utilise fair process in disciplinary, dignity at work and underperformance process. |
Summary of Workers Case: CA-00070084-001
The worker submits that there was failure to adhere to fair processes in operating multiple Disciplinary Procedures.
The worker submits that she is a civil servant and that she should have rights to proceed under EU law which protects her rights.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case: CA-00070084-001
The employer submits that the worker is a civil servant and is therefore precluded from proceeding with a dispute under provisions of the Act and there is no jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
|
Conclusions: CA-00070084-001
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
It was not disputed that the worker is a civil servant and I note that the worker outlined that there should be a mechanism to allow her to derive protection under the act and she should not be excluded because she is a civil servant and that she has rights under EU law.
Section 13(2) of the 1969 Act (as amended) provides in material part that: “Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to [an adjudication officer]”
The ‘Principal Act’ referred to in the above section is the Industrial Relations Act 1946, section 2 of which sets out the relevant definition of ‘worker’ as including the following: “any person of the age of fourteen years or upwards who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer whether the contract be for manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, 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, other than (a) a person who is employed by or under the State…” I note the Labour Court in LCR21341 regarding a dispute by a civil servant against a Government Department sets out: “The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute. Having reviewed the statutory framework the Court finds that disputes between Civil Servants and their employers are not trade disputes within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, the Court has no statutory basis for investigating such matters unless and until such powers are conferred on it in accordance with law.”
Pursuant to S23(1) (a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, as the worker is “a person employed by or under the State” she is excluded from the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and I have no jurisdiction to consider this dispute.
|
Summary of Workers Case: CA-00070084-002
The worker submits that there was failure to adhere to fair process in operating Disciplinary Procedure and employer failed to ensure fair procedures were adhered to in the initiation and prosecution of a Management of Underperformance process which culminated in a Final Written Warning.
The worker submits that she is a civil servant and that she should have rights to proceed under EU law which protects her rights. |
Summary of Employer’s Case: CA-00070084-002
The employer submits that the worker is a civil servant and is therefore precluded from proceeding with a dispute under provisions of the Act and there is no jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
|
Conclusions: CA-00070084-002
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
It was not disputed that the worker is a civil servant and I note that the worker outlined that there should be a mechanism to allow her to derive protection under the act and she should not be excluded because she is a civil servant and that she has rights under EU law.
Section 13(2) of the 1969 Act (as amended) provides in material part that: “Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to [an adjudication officer]”
The ‘Principal Act’ referred to in the above section is the Industrial Relations Act 1946, section 2 of which sets out the relevant definition of ‘worker’ as including the following: “any person of the age of fourteen years or upwards who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer whether the contract be for manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, 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, other than (a) a person who is employed by or under the State…” I note the Labour Court in LCR21341 regarding a dispute by a civil servant against a Government Department sets out: “The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute. Having reviewed the statutory framework the Court finds that disputes between Civil Servants and their employers are not trade disputes within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly the Court has no statutory basis for investigating such matters unless and until such powers are conferred on it in accordance with law.” Pursuant to S23(1) (a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, as the worker is “a person employed by or under the State” she is excluded from the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and I have no jurisdiction to consider this dispute. |
Summary of Workers Case: CA-00070084-003
The workers submits that there were failures to adhere to fair process in operating Anti Bullying Procedures following repeated unwarranted allegations being made about her by her line manager and it was raised at various levels including HR and there should have been mediation conducted by someone external to the organisation and was advised that her complaints did not come within the terms of the Dignity at Work policy.
The worker submits that she is a civil servant and that she should have rights to proceed under EU law which protects her rights.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case: CA-00070084-003
The employer submits that the worker is a civil servant and is therefore precluded from proceeding with a dispute under provisions of the Act and there is no jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
|
Conclusions: CA-00070084-003
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
It was not disputed that the worker is a civil servant and I note that the worker outlined that there should be a mechanism to allow her to derive protection under the act and she should not be excluded because she is a civil servant and that she has rights under EU law.
Section 13(2) of the 1969 Act (as amended) provides in material part that: “Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to [an adjudication officer]”
The ‘Principal Act’ referred to in the above section is the Industrial Relations Act 1946, section 2 of which sets out the relevant definition of ‘worker’ as including the following: “any person of the age of fourteen years or upwards who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer whether the contract be for manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, 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, other than (a) a person who is employed by or under the State…” I note the Labour Court in LCR21341 regarding a dispute by a civil servant against a Government Department sets out: “The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute. Having reviewed the statutory framework the Court finds that disputes between Civil Servants and their employers are not trade disputes within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, the Court has no statutory basis for investigating such matters unless and until such powers are conferred on it in accordance with law.” Pursuant to S23(1) (a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, as the worker is “a person employed by or under the State” she is excluded from the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and I have no jurisdiction to consider this dispute.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00070084-001 I have no jurisdiction to consider this dispute. CA-00070084-002 I have no jurisdiction to consider this dispute. CA-00070084-003 I have no jurisdiction to consider this dispute. |
Dated: 25th March 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Dignity at work, warnings, bullying, jurisdiction, civil servant |