This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

LCR22612

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/22/6
RECOMMENDATION  NO.  LCR22612

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES :
ROTUNDA HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY IBEC)

- AND -

A WORKER


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Connolly
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1. Lack Of Risk Assessment. The Complainant alleges she remains disadvantaged on this matter since 2017.

BACKGROUND:

2. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 on the 8th January 2022 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 17 May 2022. The following is the recommendation of the Court.


RECOMMENDATION :

The Applicant lodged a claim to the Labour Court on 8 January 2022, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A hearing of the Labour Court was held on 17 May 2022.

In response to questions from the Court, the Applicant confirmed that her employment terminated on 20 May 2019 when she was retired on health grounds.

This was confirmed to the Court by the employer’s representative who was in attendance at the hearing.

Since 2015 with the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 2015 ("the 2015 Act") a retired person is now covered within the statutory meaning of the term “worker” and can be a party to a trade dispute. However, the circumstances in which an Adjudication Officer or the Court can investigate a trade dispute to which a retired person is a party is limited by Section 26A inserted in the 1990 Act, as follows :-

S26A. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other enactment, but subject to subsection (2), an adjudication officer or the Court shall not investigate a trade dispute to which a worker who has ceased to be employed by reason of his or her retirement is a party unless—

(a) the dispute was referred to the Commission for conciliation within a period of 6 months from the date on which the worker’s employment ceased, or the date on which the event to which the dispute relates occurred, whichever is the earlier, or

(b) the dispute was referred to an adjudication officer or, as the case maybe, the Court within the period referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an adjudication officer or, as the case may be, the Court may extend the period referred to in that subsection by a further period not exceeding 6 months where the adjudication officer or the Court is satisfied that the failure to refer the dispute within the period referred to in subsection (1) was due to reasonable cause. (3) The Commission or the Court shall not investigate a trade dispute to which a worker referred to in subsection (1) is a party where the dispute is subject to investigation by the Pensions Ombudsman.

Accordingly, as the Claimant retired in 2019 and referred her case to the Court in September 2022, the case is statute-barred and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear her case.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Katie Connolly
SL ______________________
10 June 2022 Deputy Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary.