LCR23318

CD/26/74

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No.: IR-SC-00004968 (ADJ-00061964 (CA-00074591-002)

BACKGROUND:

On 4 March 2026 the Adjudication Officer issued the following recommendation:

“I recommend that the Worker write to the Employer representative attending the hearing within two weeks of the date of this recommendation setting out the measures which he believes would resolve this dispute. I recommend that the Employer meets with the Worker on these proposals within four weeks of having received them and that the parties engage in good faith to seek a resolution.”

 Page 1

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation on 6 March 2026 in accordance with section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place in Dublin on 13 August 2026.

Worker’s Submission

The Worker, employed since 1998, successfully applied for a Grade 4 national panel in or around July/August 2023. A Grade 4 post was advertised in the National Employee Relations Service which the Worker accepted. The job specification and subsequent correspondence from the Employer confirmed that the role was for a full-time receptionist in respect of which remote /blended working was not possible. The Worker says the Employer deliberately misled him when advertising the role knowing that a general operative was already filling the role on a full-time basis and that when he took up the role it was not required to work in reception, other than to cover for the receptionist’s breaks, and was instead required to undertake a range of administrative and other duties some of which he objected to undertaking.

The Worker’s position is that if he had been provided with the true information relating to the position advertised that he would not have applied for the position and would have taken a different role from others available at the material time.

The Worker raised a grievance which was not upheld. A stage 2 grievance was requested but was not processed, in breach of the Employer’s grievance procedure. The Worker feels the Employer has been unprofessional and undignified in the manner in which they have engaged with him resulting in severe effects to the Worker’s health and wellbeing.

In the intervening period the Worker had unsuccessfully applied for approximately 40 Grade 4 vacancies. The Worker wanted the Employer to facilitate his transfer to a role which met the specification of the advertised role he applied for or some other suitable role.

Employer’s Submission:

The Employer said that when the role was advertised as a full-time receptionist it was originally envisaged that the Worker would perform receptionist duties but circumstances changed whereby full-time receptionist duties were not required from the Worker.

The Employer’s position is that he was otherwise assigned duties appropriate to his grade. The Worker sought a transfer thereafter as part of his grievance and this was not within the remit of the Employer to provide.

The Employer considered that it was up to the Worker to advance his grievance appropriately and that he had not done so. The Employer was prepared to address some of the specific duties the Worker had issues with performing and otherwise accommodate some matters relating to reporting and meeting attendances.

The receptionist role in question is assigned to a Grade 3 worker which the Employer considers is the appropriate grade for the role. The Employer said there is no mobility or transfer mechanism in place in the Employer which would enable it to accede to the Worker’s requests for a transfer. The Employer identified that it is subject to formal recruitment processes. The Employer was currently subject to a recruitment freeze which had also been in place for a period between the Worker’s appointment and now.

Page 2

DECISION:

The Court can appreciate the Worker’s disappointment that the role he applied for did not materialise as he expected but did not identify that the Employer deliberately or otherwise misled the Worker in the course of the recruitment process.

The Court notes that the panel to which the Worker had been appointed had closed by the time he raised his grievance. The Court did not consider it helpful to revisit how the Worker’s grievance was handled given the passage of time and the differing views of the parties as to where the responsibility for processing the next stage lay.

The Court also appreciates the formal recruitment processes applicable in the employment and the limited scope the Employer has to resolve the Worker’s grievance but appreciates the Employer’s willingness to work with the Worker to identify a way forward to resolve the issue.

The Court has decided to recommend that the Worker and the Employer representative meet within a period of four weeks of the date of this decision to further advance the discussions which were raised in the course of the Court hearing around a possible resolution of the Worker’s grievance, having regard to the general recruitment restrictions in the Employer. The Court notes the indication from the parties that any such discussions will be undertaken on a good faith basis.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Niamh McGowan
AL	______________________
19th August 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.

Page 3