ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003431
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Security Worker | Security Service |
Representatives | Association Representative | Employer Representative |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00003431 | 18/11/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Date of Hearing: 24/03/2025
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 background to this dispute relates to the interpretation of regulations and codes that determine when a worker is entitled to an educational increment. The Employer has consistently interpreted that to be on the date of successful passing probation. The Union challenge that interpretation and state that eligibility for the award may be linked to the date of passing the probation review; however, the award itself should be backdated to the date appointment and not the date of passing probation. The matter before the Adjudicator would appear to have implications for other workers in the same organisation as if and (without prejudice to the merits of the case) the recommendation found in favour of the worker, it would apply to many other workers in this organisation The issue that then arises is this dispute properly before the Adjudicator. Section 13 of the Act states the following: 13.—(1) (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. On the plain reading of the Act this dispute is connected with rates of pay of a body of workers and arising from that fact I must decline jurisdiction. This is not a decision about the merits of the case, rather it is a dispute that should be referred in line with the procedures for a body of workers in contrast to a dispute that affects only 1 worker.
|
Preliminary Matter:
The matter before the Adjudicator would appear to have implications for other workers in the same organisation as if and (without prejudice to the merits of the case) the recommendation found in favour of the worker, it would apply to many other workers in this organisation
The issue that then arises is this dispute properly before the Adjudicator.
Section 13 of the Act states the following:
13.—(1)
(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.
On the plain reading of the Act this dispute is connected with rates of pay of a body of workers and arising from that fact I must decline jurisdiction.
This is not a decision about the merits of the case, rather it is a dispute that should be referred in line with the procedures for a body of workers in contrast to a dispute that affects only 1 worker.
Summary of Workers Case:
See preliminary matter |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
See preliminary matter |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The matter before the Adjudicator would appear to have implications for other workers in the same organisation as if and (without prejudice to the merits of the case) the recommendation found in favour of the worker, it would apply to many other workers in this organisation The issue that then arises is this dispute properly before the Adjudicator. Section 13 of the Act states the following: 13.—(1) (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. On the plain reading of the Act this dispute is connected with rates of pay of a body of workers and arising from that fact I must decline jurisdiction. This is not a decision about the merits of the case, rather it is a dispute that should be referred in line with the procedures for a body of workers in contrast to a dispute that affects only 1 worker.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. As detailed I must decline jurisdiction as the dispute is connected to rates of pay of a body of workers.
Dated: 31st March 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No Jurisdiction |