Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Production Services Worker

A Provider of print services

Representatives

Thomas Faulkner Connect Trade Union

Emily Maverley IBEC

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 - 00005032

27/08/2025

This matter came before the WRC in a claim dated 27th of August 2025 as a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The aforesaid dispute was referred to me for investigation.  The Worker’s claim relates to an allegation that the Employer refused to participate in conciliation about pay issues and seeks a pay increase for the worker as well as retrospective pay.   The claim is one of nineteen claims submitted by the union on behalf of employees of the named employer, two of which were scheduled for hearing. 

It is submitted that this dispute relates to a pay claim lodged on behalf of the worker who works in the production services  side of the business.

The worker submits that back in 2019 the Company put forward a set of proposals to the Union covering a new pay scale moving forward which the union balloted members on, and in which they voted to accept same.

It is submitted that Covid (19) hit in 2020, and the company reneged on following through with the agreed pay scales even though they had previously confirmed that they would implement same.

Following on from that the company decided that they were going to introduce a merit system to cover any pay increases going forward.

The union submits that having met in October 2024, with its members in the employers Production Services in relation to pay increases going forward, the workers advised the union that they were no longer going to remain within the merit system as they are of the view that the merit system has left them somewhat behind inflationary measures over the last number of years.   The Union submitted an 18% pay claim in October 2024, partly to include retrospective payment.

The issue was referred to the WRC in February 2025, but the company declined to attend WRC conciliation which the Union argues frustrated the dispute resolution process and led to referral to WRC adjudication.

The Union asks the Adjudication Officer to award a pay increase to its members, including retrospection, to bring its members back in line with inflation.

The Union also points to the company’s improved financial results as evidence that the company can afford a pay award.

The union disagrees with the employer’s argument that this is a collective matter concerning a body of workers submitting that it is an individual claim.

The employer submits that the WRC Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction because the claim concerns a proposed pay increase affecting a body of workers, not just one individual.

The employer submits that the claim involves approximately nineteen workers, and the Employer says this makes it a collective pay dispute.

The employer relies on section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, which excludes disputes connected with rates of pay, hours/times of work, or annual holidays of a body of workers from adjudication by an Adjudication Officer.

The submission cites cases including Shannon Airport Authority v A Worker, National Museum of Ireland v Noreen Ward, Brannigan v Equality Tribunal, Bus Éireann v SIPTU, and LCR22982 to support the jurisdictional objection.

The employer submits that the union have previously sought an 18% pay increase for 2025 on behalf of the within worker and eighteen other workers.

The employer says it could not agree to any pay increase outside its global merit scheme, which is based on affordability and applied consistently across the organisation.

The employer also argues that conceding the claim could have wider “contagion” effects across its Irish and global operations.

At the hearing, the employer clarified its correct name, which the worker’s union did not dispute.

The employer raised a preliminary jurisdictional issue under section 13(2), submitting that an AO cannot investigate a trade dispute connected with the pay rates of a body of workers.

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides:

“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, 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”.

I have considered all relevant submissions from the parties.

The Worker referred a dispute to the WRC alleging that the Employer refused conciliation on pay issues and seeking a pay increase and retrospective pay.

The Employer submits that the WRC Adjudication Officer lacks jurisdiction because the claim concerns a proposed pay increase for a body of workers, not one individual. The employer stated that the claim involves approximately nineteen workers, making it a collective pay dispute. The employer relies on section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, which excludes disputes concerning pay, hours/times of work, or annual holidays of a body of workers from adjudication by an AO.

The employer cites Shannon Airport Authority v A Worker, National Museum of Ireland v Noreen Ward, Brannigan v Equality Tribunal, Bus Éireann v SIPTU, and LCR22982 in support.

The worker representative stated that it had sought an 18% pay increase for 2025 on behalf of nineteen workers.

The Employer said it could not agree any increase outside its global merit scheme, which is affordability-based and applied consistently.  The Employer stated that conceding the claim could have wider “contagion” effects across Irish and global operations.

The employer asks the AO to find the claim lacks jurisdiction as a collective pay dispute submitting that the AO lacks jurisdiction because although it is framed as an individual claim, the dispute concerns a general pay increase.  The employer refers to the fact that the complaint form itself states that approximately nineteen workers are involved thus as the claim concerns the rates of pay of a body of workers, the Employer submits that it is a collective pay dispute, not an individual dispute.

The worker representative at the hearing was asked to respond to the Employer’s submission that the claim relates to a body of workers.

The union argued that the claim is individual, stating that pay increases are agreed annually between employees and their line managers.

The union stated that each employee is dealt with individually under the merit system, not collectively year to year adding that the last collective agreement was in 2019, after which the company introduced the merit system.

The union maintained that employees are assessed individually under the annual merit system.

The employer advised the hearing that the merit scheme is globally implemented and linked to employee performance arguing that an individual pay rise for this worker would create contagion for the other eighteen members.

The employer in asserting this stated that the within claim is identical to the other eighteen pay claims and seeks a general increase for all nineteen workers.

The worker representative clarified that the worker seeks a pay increase and retrospective payment.

The worker representative was asked how the claim differs from a collective claim and repeated that pay increases are handled individually through line managers under the merit system.   The representative acknowledged that there are nineteen related pay claims.

The employer stated that it is a global organisation and each country receives a percentage increase under the global merit scheme, which local management then distributes.

The employer stated that any concession to the named worker would affect the other eighteen workers and potentially employees globally.

The employer submitted that the claim concerns a body of workers and would affect a wider group, so the AO is statutorily barred from hearing it.

The Employer relies on Labour Court and Supreme Court authorities stating that claims with wider pay implications should not be treated as individual adjudication matters.

In considering this argument I note that section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, permits certain trade disputes to be referred to adjudication but excludes disputes connected with

• rates of pay,
• hours or times of work, or
• annual holidays

where the dispute concerns a body of workers.

I also note that the Labour Court has consistently held that an AO should not propose a solution where it would have wider implications or where jurisdiction is absent.

In the present case, the Employer submits that section 13(2) applies because the issue concerns pay, including an alleged refusal to engage in conciliation and a request for an 18% pay increase.    I also note that there are nineteen similar claims submitted and that the pay issue thus affects more than one worker.  I note that the complaint form states that approximately nineteen workers are involved, so it is clear that the claim is not confined to one worker.

Having considered the submissions and arguments advanced , I am satisfied that the within claim has broader implications and that a pay increase for the named employee would likely affect the other 18 workers and potentially wider groups, making it a collective dispute concerning the rates of pay of a body of workers.   I am further satisfied that any concession of the within claim could have broader implications and therefore falls foul of section 13(2) of the Act.

Accordingly, as any recommendation could affect a body of workers, I am satisfied that, in accordance with section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as amended, I lack jurisdiction to issue a recommendation in respect of this dispute.

For the reasons set out above, I do not have jurisdiction to issue a recommendation in this dispute.