LCR23313

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00049845 (CA-00061207-001, IR-SC-00002163).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 07 August 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 31 July 2026.

---------------------------------------------

Page 1

RECOMMENDATION:

This is an appeal by the Worker of Recommendation IR-SC-00002163 of an Adjudication Officer in respect of the Worker’s claim that he is entitled to the financial value of certain employment-related benefits for the period 2013 to 2019. The Adjudication Officer did not uphold the Worker’s claim. At the start of the hearing, the Court reminded the parties that this was not an employment rights case.

The Union submitted that the Worker’s claim was in respect of pension, annual leave, public holidays and privilege days. It was his submission that he suffered losses amounting to €77,000. The Worker commenced employment in August 2008 and was issued with a series of independent/sole trader contracts for services. In 2018, the Unions and Management agreed to an external body conducting a review of the employment status of more than 400 independent/sole traders, of which this Worker was one. The outcome of that review was a finding for a number of workers, including this Worker, that their roles had “attributes akin to employment”. In October 2019, the Worker received a casual contract of employment.

Following on from the review, agreement was reached between the Union and the Employer to appoint joint facilitators to look at recognition of previous service. Arising from that process, the Worker was offered an ex-gratia lump sum of €2,800. However, he feels that this figure does not adequately reflect his treatment and the losses he suffered because of the misclassification of his employment status over the years. The proposal included a right of appeal, but the Worker’s appeal was unsuccessful. The Union, in its submission, gave a breakdown of the compensation it is seeking based on comparing his 2021 permanent contract against his original contract for a seven-year period. The offer made under the joint facilitation process was made on the basis that non-acceptance by an employee “did not preclude any individual from pursuing a case should they decide not to accept the terms”; therefore, there is nothing to preclude the Worker from taking this case. The joint facilitator process excluded service prior to 2013, which favoured Workers with shorter service over those with longer service. The Worker is seeking compensation for the losses he has identified.

The representative for the Employer submitted that the Worker’s engagement with the Employer began in August 2008 and that he was engaged on a series of independent/sole trader contracts for service. On 6 October 2020, the Worker was offered a full-time contract of employment, and he accepted this offer on 7 October 2020. In 2017, the Employer made a commitment to examine the freelance and contractor contractual engagements and engaged a third party to do this. Following that review of 433 contractors, 106 individuals were assessed as having “attributes akin to employment”, and this Worker was one of those individuals.

Following the publication of that report, the Employer engaged with the Trade Unions and agreed several governing principles. The most relevant for the purpose of this case is: “4. Contracts of employment offered will reflect the pattern of engagement with the employer over the previous two years.” The Worker was offered a contract in line with the governing principles on 18 November 2019 and it was a 0.16 FTE contract, which reflected the pattern of engagement with the Employer over the previous two years. While the Worker raised some concerns about this, it was explained that it was based on his working pattern for the previous two years, which was lower than earlier years, and that this was in accordance with the agreement between the Employer and the Unions. The Worker did not appeal same.

A Retrospection Agreement was reached, and the Worker was made an offer under that agreement which required him to accept that it was in full and final settlement of all claims related to the matter. The Worker did not accept the settlement offer, but 81.5% of those who were made offers under the Retrospection Agreement did. The Retrospection Agreement was the product of an extensive and collaborative industrial relations process. It followed months of engagement, goodwill and compromise from all sides. The Trade Union Group supported the agreement,

---------------------------------------------

Page 2

and 81.5% of those affected accepted its terms. The Employer submitted that the Adjudication Officer’s decision should be upheld.

 Discussion and decision

 The Worker, through his Union representative, confirmed that he had not, during the relevant time period, raised any issue with his Employer about the nature of his contracts or sought to vindicate what he believed to be his legal entitlements by processing a complaint under the appropriate pieces of employment legislation. It seems to the Court that the Worker’s discontent arises from the fact that during the agreed two-year period on which his work pattern was based, he was working elsewhere and only working 0.16 FTE for the Employer, which resulted in a smaller award of retrospection. While the agreement does not prevent him from taking a claim, the Court sees no basis for departing from the agreed formula and recommends that the Complainant accept the ex-gratia payment of €2,800.

Decision

The Court, having taken into consideration the written submissions and oral submissions on the day of the hearing, recommends that the Complainant accept the ex-gratia payment of €2,800.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
BB	______________________
01/09/2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Bernard Byrne, Court Secretary.

------------------------------------------------

Page 3