ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004025
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
Representatives |
|
|
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00004025 | 27/03/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Date of Hearing: 20/08/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Worker referred a dispute under the Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 seeking to regularise her acting up arrangement. The Employer disputed the position. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker outlined that she loved her job in a care facility along with the colleagues she worked with. It was her submission that she her disputes with the Director of Nursing initially in 2022 regarding her review of her position as a Multi Task Assistant (MTA) and following engagement with HR she progressed it to the Service Manager on 26 July 2023. She progressed through the Grievance Procedure but remains unsatisfied with the outcome. She also submitted that she undertook additional qualifications during this time to support her position. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
It was submitted on behalf of the Employer that following a Labour Court Recommendation LCR22066 it carried out a re-evaluation of all MTA. It was directed that all in order to meet the level of a Health Care Assistant, the MTA must undertake 90% of a caring role. Following a review in 2021 of the Worker, she was deemed not to have been the 90% threshold. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
It is understood that the Worker has obtained additional qualifications since 2021 and is regarded as a committed member of staff within the facility where she works. It is also evident that she maintains positive relationships with both her colleagues and the residents of the care facility. This is acknowledged and commended.
In 2021, a review of the Worker’s role as an MTA was undertaken by the Employer, but this occurred without consultation with the Worker.
Following her email of 26 July 2023 to the Service Manager, a meeting took place in February 2024. The Grievance Process concluded on 25 January 2025 with the issuing of an appeal outcome. The Grievance Procedure addressed retrospective matters relating to the period 2019–2021.
While it appears that the Service Manager made a genuine attempt to progress the matter in 2024, the reality is that there is a Labour Court Recommendation which must be honoured, together with a SIPTU-agreed job evaluation process, which cannot be interfered with.
At present, there is no option to review the Worker’s position as an MTA. However, she is not precluded from progressing through the normal recruitment channels in order to advance her career, particularly in light of the additional qualifications she has achieved. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons set out above, I am making no recommendation in this dispute.
Dated: 21st August 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Dispute |