LCR23151

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00051632 (CA-00063393-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 4 December 2024

in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 22 November 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

As the claim is clearly within the domain of pay rates a body of workers as provided in Section 13(2) of the Act, I lack the jurisdiction to make a Recommendation on this dispute.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 9 June 2025.

DECISION:

Background to the Dispute

This is the Worker’s appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00051632, dated 22 November 2024) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 4 December 2024. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on 9 June 2025. The Adjudication Officer declined jurisdiction to deal with the substantive dispute as she found that it related to the rates of pay of a body of workers and was, therefore, not comprehended by section 13 of the Act.

The Dispute

The Worker is employed as a GHS Driver in Wilton, Cork to deliver goods to Tesco (‘the Company’) customers who have availed themselves of the Company’s home delivery service. He is paid €18.48 per hour.

In December 2023, the manager of the Wilton store met with the GHS drivers employed there to inform them of a 4% pay increase and to offer them the opportunity to move to a consolidated rate of pay. Shortly after Christmas, the manager called the Worker to a meeting to inform him that he had made a mistake at the December meeting as he had not understood at that time that certain drivers, including the Worker, who were on historical rates of pay were not in scope to avail themselves of the Company’s offer to move to a consolidated rate of pay.

The Worker subsequently raised a grievance in relation to the Company’s decision. His grievance was not upheld at either first instance or on appeal.

The Claim

The Worker’s Union requests the Court to:

“find this case to be well-founded and instruct the respondent to apply equal treatment to [the Worker] afforded to his colleagues by instructing the company to move him to the higher consolidated rate of pay … [and] that [the Worker] be awarded €1,231.10 as this is the balance of his potential earnings, should he have moved to the consolidated rate of pay in the first instance.”

The Company’s Submission

The Company submits that it employs a total of 214 drivers who are paid a higher rate of pay than the highest consolidated rate of €17.19 per hour. Seven of those drivers are employed in the same store as the Worker.

The Company also submits that the purpose of the briefing held with the GHS drivers in December 2023 was to notify them of the Company’s decision to introduce a new consolidated rate of pay for GHS drivers who were on a rate less than €17.19 per hour (after the 4% increase was applied). The proposal did not extend to drivers who were already paid a higher rate than that. At that time, the Worker was paid €17.77 per hour.

Finally, the Company submits that the consolidated hourly rate which the Worker is seeking applies only to those employed as customer assistants; it does not apply to drivers and that to accede to the Worker’s claim would have implications for a body of workers i.e. the 214 drivers who are in receipt of an hourly rate of pay above €17.19.

Section 13(2) Industrial Relations Act 1969

Section 13(2) provides:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.”

This Court, in its decision in Shannon Airport Authority v A Worker AD1388, decided:

“The Rights Commissioner Service was primarily established to investigate cases of an individual character which prior to its establishment would have occupied the Labour Court’s time unnecessarily. Claims which by their very nature and character have broader implications are inappropriate for the Rights Commissioner Service and are dealt with by the Labour Court. The 1969 Act provided a stipulation that issues concerning such matters as rates of pay, hours or times of work or annual holidays are issues which can have broader implications and are consequently not issues appropriate to the Rights Commissioner Service. In all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the appeal before the Court concerns issues related to rates of pay and concerns a body of workers acting in concert. It is a claim which if conceded could potentially have broader implications for others. On that basis the Court is of the view that it is precluded by the terms of Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 from hearing the case.”

Decision

It is apparent to the Court that the circumstances of the Worker on whose behalf this appeal has been brought are not unique to him and that any decision the Court were to make in respect of his claim would have consequences for the two hundred plus drivers employed by the Company on similar terms.

In the light of section 13(2) and its conclusion that any decision of the Court has the potential to affect the pay of a body of workers, the Court concludes that it is statute-barred from making a decision in this matter.

The Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
CC	______________________
25 June 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.