LCR23311

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00056206 (CA-00068470-001 IR-SC-00003628).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 17 September 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 22 August 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“As provided for in Section 13 of the Act, as this dispute has implications for a body of workers, I cannot recommend resolution in this case.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 17 July 2026.

Page 1

DECISION:

The Appeal

This is the Worker’s appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00056206, dated 22 August 2025) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer held that the dispute referred by the Worker had implications for ‘a body of workers’ and he, therefore, declined to recommend a ‘resolution’ to the dispute.

The Worker appealed from that Recommendation on 17 September 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 17 July 2026.

Brief Factual Background

The Worker has been employed by St James’ Hospital (‘the Employer’) as Accounts Payable Manager since 2008. His position was originally at Grade VI, however, the Employer undertook a restructuring exercise in 2015, as a result of which the position was upgraded to a Grade VII post.

The Dispute

The Worker is seeking to have his post upgraded from a Grade VII post to a Grade VIII post.

The Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that he has demonstrated ‘exemplary performance over 18 years’ in his post. He further submits that his team has increased over the years and the tasks for which he has responsibility have become more complex. The foregoing, he contends, warrants a regrading of his post to Grade VIII. He further submits that in 2011 he had been ‘assured’ of an upgrade ‘in recognition of additional responsibilities associated with the project he was asked to lead’ at that time but that that upgrade never materialised.

The Worker told the Court that he is currently involved in an HSE national project – the Integrated Financial Management System (‘IFMS’) – and is in receipt of an additional allowance for this which will cease when the project concludes in August 2026.

The Employer’s Submission

It is the Employer’s submission that the within dispute is collective in nature as it has implications for the grading and associated rates of pay of a body of workers and, as such, is not, therefore, properly before the Court under section 13 of the Act. The Employer further submits that the job evaluation scheme provided for in HSE Circular 14/2016 does not apply to grades above Grade VI and to concede the Worker’s claim for regrading of his Grade VII post would contravene the Circular and thereby have collective and national implications. Concession of the Worker’s claim, it is contended, would set a precedent for others employed in the health sector in similar roles to pursue claims.

The Employer informed the Court that the Worker has utilised the formal grievance procedure in which he focused largely on the implications of Brexit for his workload. He also sought to advance his claim for regrading of his post during that process. At Stage 3, the process was paused to allow for discussions to take place between the Worker and his managers. The Worker then submitted a business case proposal in support of his claim for regrading. This was not accepted by Management. The Employee Relations Manager issued his written outcome of the Stage 3 appeal on 28 November 2022. He stated, inter alia, in his written outcome letter:

“Furthermore, you mentioned the possibility of an upgrade of your role and you suggested that this would solve the problem. I explained that normally upgrades are given when the work undertaken is proven to be

Page 2

of a more complicated level. It is not enough to simply be busier carrying out work of a same or similar level. I also note that there have been other changes in work practices in the wider Finance Department which were worked through and absorbed into the duties of the relevant section.

Discussion and Recommendation

Section 13(2) of the Act provides:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay, 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 [the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission].”

The proper interpretation of section 13(2) was given detailed consideration by this Court in Shannon Airport Authority v A Worker AD1389 wherein the Court stated (in reference to the Rights Commissioner Service which was a predecessor to the Adjudication Service of the Workplace Relations Commission):

“The Rights Commissioner Service was primarily established to investigate cases of an individual character which prior to its establishment would have occupied the Labour Court’s time unnecessarily. Claims which by their very nature and character have broader implications are inappropriate for the Rights Commissioner Service and are dealt with by the Labour Court. The 1969 Act provided a stipulation that issues concerning such matters as rates of pay, hours or times of work or annual holidays are issues which can have broader implications and are consequently not issues appropriate to the Rights Commissioner Service.

In all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the appeal before the Court concerns issues related to rates of pay and concerns a body of workers acting in concert. It is a claim which if conceded could potentially have broader implications for others. On that basis the Court is of the view that it is precluded by the terms of Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 from hearing the case.

Having carefully considered the Parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court finds that concession of the Worker’s claim to have his post regraded from a Grade VII to a Grade VIII post falls foul of section 13(2) of the Act as it would have collective and national implications.

The findings of the Adjudication Officer are upheld and the appeal fails.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
TH	______________________
28/07/2027	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary., Court Secretary.

Page 3