LCR22676

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00032339 CA-0043018-001


BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 27 July 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 21 June 2022 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a Recommendation in relation to the dispute. In respect of the particular circumstances such as those of the worker, I recommend that the parties engage further to agree a process, for example involving an independent decision maker, to consider the situations of the individual employees on their merits and decide their claims within the ambit of the agreed process.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 October 2022.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the PNA of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ-00032339 on behalf of a worker with the HSE.

The PNA seeks that the Court recommend that the worker is classified as a HSE employee since the commencement of her employment as a community nurse in 1997 and receives the same terms and conditions as former health board/HSE employees.

The Adjudication Officer recommended that

• “In respect of the particular circumstances such as those of the worker, I recommend that the parties engage further to agree a process, for example involving an independent decision maker, to consider the situation of the individual employees on their merits and decide their claims within the ambit of the agreed process”.

The Court notes that the employer did not appeal the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation.

The employer’s position is that there was some engagement on the matter, although it acknowledges that such engagement was limited. The employer said it was satisfied to accept the recommendation, as long as the independent decision maker involved was the Pension’s Ombudsman. In its view, the only pathway to resolve the issue lies in a referral of the matter to the independent body of the Pension’s Ombudsman.

The employer was unable to clarify to the Court how this matter might be resolved within the scope of the functions of the Pensions Ombudsman’s office.

The Court was advised that certain matters relating to the worker’s employment status have been resolved since this matter was first referred to the Workplace Relations Commission, and that since 2022 the worker has been offered a HSE contract of employment.

In light of the very particular circumstances outlined to the Court in this case, the Court sees merit in the approach recommended by the Adjudication Officer.

Noting again that the employer was unable to clarify to the Court how this matter might be resolved within the scope of the functions of the Pensions Ombudsman’s office and having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the parties engage further to agree a process, for example involving an independent decision maker, to consider the situation of the worker on its merits and to decide the outstanding issues in relation to her claim within the ambit of the agreed process.

The Adjudication Officer’s recommendation is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
14 November 2022	______________________
CO'R	Deputy Chairman