LCR23180

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00052610 (CA-00064468 IR-SC-0002808)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 14 March 2025. in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 13 March 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“It is recommended that the Worker be allowed to benefit from Section 1 of the DEPR Circular 08/2019 and be given credit for his prior service in the Institute.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 September2025.

DECISION:

The matter before the Court concerns a claim for the application of incremental credit to a worker who was appointed as a permanent employee, after working for several years working in the same role as an agency worker.

The worker was employed through an agency from November 2017 to May 2023. He was appointed to a permanent position as a direct employee with the employer in May 2023. He seeks that his prior service working as an agency worker be recognised and that he be placed on a higher point on the pay scale with a retrospection to the dated of his appointment as a direct employee.

The employer contends that the matter in dispute before the Court relates to a body of workers, rather than an individual, and considering that fact the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The core issue in dispute is the application of Circular 08/2019 and any recommendation in relation to this claim would have implications for other employees across the public sector.

While the employer understands and appreciates the workers upset and frustration with the situation, its submits that it is bound by government rules and does not have discretion to deviate from the rules set out in Circular 08/2019. As the worker was not a serving public sector employee prior to May 2023, it is not possible to recognise his prior service as an agency worker.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties.

The role of Court in referrals such as these is to assist the parties wherever possible in resolving workplace issues so the parties can move forward.

In this case the parties accepted at the hearing that the Court is effectively being requested to interpret Circular 08/2019 which is issued by the Minister for Public Expenditure and sets out arrangements to apply for starting pay on promotion and appointment to the Civil Service. That circular has national application.

The Act at Section 13 makes provision as follows:

13.(2) 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 a rights commissioner.

There is no doubt that a decision of the Court regarding the interpretation of the national circular at issue in the dispute between the parties relates to the rates of pay of a body of workers.

The interpretation of a Departmental Circular – itself underpinned by a collective agreement – is collective in nature and, therefore, not within the scope of section 13 of the Act. As a result, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction under section 13 of the Act to make a decision in the within appeal.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
FC	______________________
24 September 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.